Cargando…
Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has gained increasing acceptance for patients with aortic disease. Both transfemoral (TF-TAVR) and transapical (TA-TAVR) approach were widely adopted while their performances are limited to a few studies with controversial results. This meta-...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8320184/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34320946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02158-4 |
_version_ | 1783730599963394048 |
---|---|
author | Guo, Ruikang Xie, Minghui Yim, Wai Yen Wu, Wenconghui Jiang, Weiwei Wang, Yin Hu, Xingjian |
author_facet | Guo, Ruikang Xie, Minghui Yim, Wai Yen Wu, Wenconghui Jiang, Weiwei Wang, Yin Hu, Xingjian |
author_sort | Guo, Ruikang |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has gained increasing acceptance for patients with aortic disease. Both transfemoral (TF-TAVR) and transapical (TA-TAVR) approach were widely adopted while their performances are limited to a few studies with controversial results. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the mortality and morbidity of complications between TF- versus TA-TAVR based on the latest data. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched until April 2021. RCTs and observational studies comparing the outcomes between TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR patients were included. Heterogeneity assumption was assessed by an I(2) test. The pooled odds ratios(OR) or mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to evaluate the difference for each end point using a fixed-effect model or random-effect model based on I(2) test. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 1 RCT and 20 observational studies, enrolling 19,520 patients (TF-TAVR, n = 11,986 and TA-TAVR, n = 7,534). Compared with TA-TAVR, TF-TAVR patients showed significantly lower rate of postoperative in-hospital death (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59–0.77, P < 0.001) and 1-year death (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.41–0.69, P < 0.001). Incidence of major bleeding and acute kidney injury were lower and length of hospital stay was shorter, whereas those of permanent pacemaker and major vascular complication were higher in TF-TAVR patients. There were no significant differences between TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR for stroke and mid-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There were fewer early deaths in patients with transfemoral approach, whereas the number of mid-term deaths and stroke was not significantly different between two approaches. TF-TAVR was associated with lower risk of bleeding, acute kidney injury as well as shorter in-hospital stay, but higher incidence of vascular complication and permanent pacemaker implantation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02158-4. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8320184 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83201842021-07-30 Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement Guo, Ruikang Xie, Minghui Yim, Wai Yen Wu, Wenconghui Jiang, Weiwei Wang, Yin Hu, Xingjian BMC Cardiovasc Disord Review BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has gained increasing acceptance for patients with aortic disease. Both transfemoral (TF-TAVR) and transapical (TA-TAVR) approach were widely adopted while their performances are limited to a few studies with controversial results. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the mortality and morbidity of complications between TF- versus TA-TAVR based on the latest data. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched until April 2021. RCTs and observational studies comparing the outcomes between TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR patients were included. Heterogeneity assumption was assessed by an I(2) test. The pooled odds ratios(OR) or mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to evaluate the difference for each end point using a fixed-effect model or random-effect model based on I(2) test. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 1 RCT and 20 observational studies, enrolling 19,520 patients (TF-TAVR, n = 11,986 and TA-TAVR, n = 7,534). Compared with TA-TAVR, TF-TAVR patients showed significantly lower rate of postoperative in-hospital death (OR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.59–0.77, P < 0.001) and 1-year death (OR = 0.53, 95% CI 0.41–0.69, P < 0.001). Incidence of major bleeding and acute kidney injury were lower and length of hospital stay was shorter, whereas those of permanent pacemaker and major vascular complication were higher in TF-TAVR patients. There were no significant differences between TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR for stroke and mid-term mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There were fewer early deaths in patients with transfemoral approach, whereas the number of mid-term deaths and stroke was not significantly different between two approaches. TF-TAVR was associated with lower risk of bleeding, acute kidney injury as well as shorter in-hospital stay, but higher incidence of vascular complication and permanent pacemaker implantation. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02158-4. BioMed Central 2021-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8320184/ /pubmed/34320946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02158-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Guo, Ruikang Xie, Minghui Yim, Wai Yen Wu, Wenconghui Jiang, Weiwei Wang, Yin Hu, Xingjian Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement |
title | Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement |
title_full | Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement |
title_fullStr | Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement |
title_full_unstemmed | Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement |
title_short | Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement |
title_sort | dose approach matter? a meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8320184/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34320946 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12872-021-02158-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT guoruikang doseapproachmatterametaanalysisofoutcomesfollowingtransfemoralversustransapicaltranscatheteraorticvalvereplacement AT xieminghui doseapproachmatterametaanalysisofoutcomesfollowingtransfemoralversustransapicaltranscatheteraorticvalvereplacement AT yimwaiyen doseapproachmatterametaanalysisofoutcomesfollowingtransfemoralversustransapicaltranscatheteraorticvalvereplacement AT wuwenconghui doseapproachmatterametaanalysisofoutcomesfollowingtransfemoralversustransapicaltranscatheteraorticvalvereplacement AT jiangweiwei doseapproachmatterametaanalysisofoutcomesfollowingtransfemoralversustransapicaltranscatheteraorticvalvereplacement AT wangyin doseapproachmatterametaanalysisofoutcomesfollowingtransfemoralversustransapicaltranscatheteraorticvalvereplacement AT huxingjian doseapproachmatterametaanalysisofoutcomesfollowingtransfemoralversustransapicaltranscatheteraorticvalvereplacement |