Wasiq Faraz Rawasia1, Muhammad Shahzeb Khan2, Muhammad Shariq Usman3, Tariq Jamal Siddiqi3, Firzah Abdul Mujeeb3, Mohsin Chundrigar4, Ankur Kalra5,6, Mohamad Alkhouli1, Clifford J Kavinsky7, Deepak L Bhatt8. 1. Division of Cardiology, School of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Cook County Hospital, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Dow Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, The Aga Khan University - Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan. 5. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 6. Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. Division of Cardiology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 8. Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the available literature on using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for native aortic regurgitation (AR). BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard therapy for native AR. TAVR has emerged as an alternative approach in high-risk patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for reports of at least 5 patients undergoing TAVR for native AR. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, postprocedural moderate to severe AR, and device success. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and a meta-regression were performed to study the effects of study level covariates on outcomes. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (n =998 patients) were included. The rate of procedural success per Valve Academic Research Consortium - 2 (VARC-2) criteria was 86.2% (78.8%-92.2%]. Thirty-day mortality was 11.9% (9.4%-14.7%). Subgroup analysis showed the use of new generation valves was associated with lower 30-day mortality (P = 0.02) and higher device success (P = 0.009) compared with early generation valves. There was no significant difference (P = 0.13) in the rate of 30-day mortality between patients receiving purpose-specific [8.2% (4.3%-13.1%); I2 = 0%] and nonpurpose specific valves [13.0% (8.2%-18.6%); I2 = 25%]. However, device success was higher (P = 0.02) in patients who received purpose-specific valves [96.3% (92.2%-98.9%); I2 = 0%] compared with nonpurpose specific valves [84.4% (75%-91.9%); I2 =46%]. CONCLUSION: TAVR for native AR is associated with acceptable procedural success but increased early mortality. However, the safety and the efficacy of the procedure increased with newer valves.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the available literature on using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for native aortic regurgitation (AR). BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard therapy for native AR. TAVR has emerged as an alternative approach in high-risk patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for reports of at least 5 patients undergoing TAVR for native AR. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, postprocedural moderate to severe AR, and device success. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and a meta-regression were performed to study the effects of study level covariates on outcomes. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (n =998 patients) were included. The rate of procedural success per Valve Academic Research Consortium - 2 (VARC-2) criteria was 86.2% (78.8%-92.2%]. Thirty-day mortality was 11.9% (9.4%-14.7%). Subgroup analysis showed the use of new generation valves was associated with lower 30-day mortality (P = 0.02) and higher device success (P = 0.009) compared with early generation valves. There was no significant difference (P = 0.13) in the rate of 30-day mortality between patients receiving purpose-specific [8.2% (4.3%-13.1%); I2 = 0%] and nonpurpose specific valves [13.0% (8.2%-18.6%); I2 = 25%]. However, device success was higher (P = 0.02) in patients who received purpose-specific valves [96.3% (92.2%-98.9%); I2 = 0%] compared with nonpurpose specific valves [84.4% (75%-91.9%); I2 =46%]. CONCLUSION: TAVR for native AR is associated with acceptable procedural success but increased early mortality. However, the safety and the efficacy of the procedure increased with newer valves.