Cargando…

Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as the most superior alternative treatment approach for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who are associated with high surgical risk, whereas the effectiveness of TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low to interme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Dengshen, Mao, Xin, Liu, Daxing, Zhang, Jian, Luo, Gang, Luo, Liangliang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7724228/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32926456
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23454
_version_ 1783620501637169152
author Zhang, Dengshen
Mao, Xin
Liu, Daxing
Zhang, Jian
Luo, Gang
Luo, Liangliang
author_facet Zhang, Dengshen
Mao, Xin
Liu, Daxing
Zhang, Jian
Luo, Gang
Luo, Liangliang
author_sort Zhang, Dengshen
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as the most superior alternative treatment approach for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who are associated with high surgical risk, whereas the effectiveness of TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients remained inconclusive. This study aimed to determine the best treatment strategies for AS with low to intermediate surgical risk based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). HYPOTHESIS AND METHODS: RCTs that compared TAVR vs SAVR in AS patients with low to intermediate surgical risk were identified by PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library from inception till April 2019. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the data collected using random‐effects models. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with a total of 6929 AS patients were enrolled. We noted that TAVR significantly increased the risk of transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR: 1.43; 95%CI: 1.04‐1.96; P = .029), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR: 3.00; 95%CI: 1.70‐5.30; P < .001). However, TAVR was associated with lower risk of post‐procedural bleeding (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.33‐0.98; P = .042), new‐onset or worsening of atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23‐0.45; P < .001), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.25‐0.63; P < .001), and cardiogenic shock (RR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.19‐0.59; P < .001). The risk of aortic‐valve reintervention at 1‐ (RR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.34‐5.15; P = .005), and 2 years (RR: 3.19; 95%CI: 1.63‐6.24; P = .001) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR was significantly increased than those who received SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicated that low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR had low risk of complications, whereas the risk of TIA, permanent pacemaker implantation, and aortic‐valve reintervention was increased.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7724228
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77242282020-12-11 Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials Zhang, Dengshen Mao, Xin Liu, Daxing Zhang, Jian Luo, Gang Luo, Liangliang Clin Cardiol Clinical Investigations BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as the most superior alternative treatment approach for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who are associated with high surgical risk, whereas the effectiveness of TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients remained inconclusive. This study aimed to determine the best treatment strategies for AS with low to intermediate surgical risk based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). HYPOTHESIS AND METHODS: RCTs that compared TAVR vs SAVR in AS patients with low to intermediate surgical risk were identified by PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library from inception till April 2019. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the data collected using random‐effects models. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with a total of 6929 AS patients were enrolled. We noted that TAVR significantly increased the risk of transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR: 1.43; 95%CI: 1.04‐1.96; P = .029), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR: 3.00; 95%CI: 1.70‐5.30; P < .001). However, TAVR was associated with lower risk of post‐procedural bleeding (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.33‐0.98; P = .042), new‐onset or worsening of atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23‐0.45; P < .001), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.25‐0.63; P < .001), and cardiogenic shock (RR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.19‐0.59; P < .001). The risk of aortic‐valve reintervention at 1‐ (RR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.34‐5.15; P = .005), and 2 years (RR: 3.19; 95%CI: 1.63‐6.24; P = .001) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR was significantly increased than those who received SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicated that low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR had low risk of complications, whereas the risk of TIA, permanent pacemaker implantation, and aortic‐valve reintervention was increased. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2020-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC7724228/ /pubmed/32926456 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23454 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Investigations
Zhang, Dengshen
Mao, Xin
Liu, Daxing
Zhang, Jian
Luo, Gang
Luo, Liangliang
Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
title Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_fullStr Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_short Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
title_sort transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Clinical Investigations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7724228/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32926456
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23454
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangdengshen transcathetervssurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinlowtointermediatesurgicalriskaorticstenosispatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT maoxin transcathetervssurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinlowtointermediatesurgicalriskaorticstenosispatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT liudaxing transcathetervssurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinlowtointermediatesurgicalriskaorticstenosispatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT zhangjian transcathetervssurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinlowtointermediatesurgicalriskaorticstenosispatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT luogang transcathetervssurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinlowtointermediatesurgicalriskaorticstenosispatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT luoliangliang transcathetervssurgicalaorticvalvereplacementinlowtointermediatesurgicalriskaorticstenosispatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials