Cargando…

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 vs. Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has achieved satisfactory outcomes in the selected patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), predominately type 1 BAV (~90%). However, there are few reports about the safety and efficacy of TAVI in type 0 BAV. Therefore, in the current stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Du, Yu, Wang, Zhijian, Liu, Wei, Guo, Yonghe, Han, Wei, Shen, Hua, Jia, Shuo, Yu, Yi, Han, Kangning, Shi, Dongmei, Zhao, Yingxin, Zhou, Yujie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34805325
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.771789
_version_ 1784601896812544000
author Du, Yu
Wang, Zhijian
Liu, Wei
Guo, Yonghe
Han, Wei
Shen, Hua
Jia, Shuo
Yu, Yi
Han, Kangning
Shi, Dongmei
Zhao, Yingxin
Zhou, Yujie
author_facet Du, Yu
Wang, Zhijian
Liu, Wei
Guo, Yonghe
Han, Wei
Shen, Hua
Jia, Shuo
Yu, Yi
Han, Kangning
Shi, Dongmei
Zhao, Yingxin
Zhou, Yujie
author_sort Du, Yu
collection PubMed
description Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has achieved satisfactory outcomes in the selected patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), predominately type 1 BAV (~90%). However, there are few reports about the safety and efficacy of TAVI in type 0 BAV. Therefore, in the current study, we aimed to compare procedural and 30-day outcomes after TAVI between type 0 and type 1 BAV. Methods: Studies comparing the outcomes of TAVI in Sievers type 0 vs. type 1 BAV were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to May 2021. The data were extracted regarding the study characteristics and outcomes. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were pooled for procedural and 30-day outcomes. Results: Six observational studies were included with determined type 0 BAV in 226 patients and type 1 BAV in 902 patients. The patients with type 0 BAV were slightly younger, had larger supra-annular structure, and more frequently implanted self-expanding prosthesis compared with type 1 BAV. In the pooled analyses, the patients with type 0 BAV had a similar incidence of procedural death (OR = 2.6, 95% CI 0.7–10.3), device success (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.3–1.3), and ≥ mild (OR = 0.8; 95% CI 0.4–1.6) or moderate (OR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.4–1.8) paravalvular leak, whereas significantly higher mean aortic gradient (mean difference = 1.4 mmHg, 95% CI 0.03–2.7) and increased coronary compromise risk (OR = 7.2; 95% CI 1.5–34.9), compared with type 1 BAV. Meanwhile, the incidence of death (OR = 1.2; 95% CI 0.5–3.1), stroke (OR = 0.5; 95% CI 0.1–2.4), and new pacemaker (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.2–2.2) at 30 days were not significantly different between the BAV morphologies (p > 0.05). The treatment effect heterogeneity across the studies for the above outcomes were low. Conclusions: The patients with type 0 BAV appear to have similar short-term outcomes after TAVI compared with type 1 BAV. Whereas, TAVI for type 0 BAV aortic stenosis might lead to an elevated coronary obstruction risk and suboptimal aortic valvular hemodynamics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8604151
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86041512021-11-20 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 vs. Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Du, Yu Wang, Zhijian Liu, Wei Guo, Yonghe Han, Wei Shen, Hua Jia, Shuo Yu, Yi Han, Kangning Shi, Dongmei Zhao, Yingxin Zhou, Yujie Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has achieved satisfactory outcomes in the selected patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV), predominately type 1 BAV (~90%). However, there are few reports about the safety and efficacy of TAVI in type 0 BAV. Therefore, in the current study, we aimed to compare procedural and 30-day outcomes after TAVI between type 0 and type 1 BAV. Methods: Studies comparing the outcomes of TAVI in Sievers type 0 vs. type 1 BAV were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to May 2021. The data were extracted regarding the study characteristics and outcomes. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were pooled for procedural and 30-day outcomes. Results: Six observational studies were included with determined type 0 BAV in 226 patients and type 1 BAV in 902 patients. The patients with type 0 BAV were slightly younger, had larger supra-annular structure, and more frequently implanted self-expanding prosthesis compared with type 1 BAV. In the pooled analyses, the patients with type 0 BAV had a similar incidence of procedural death (OR = 2.6, 95% CI 0.7–10.3), device success (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.3–1.3), and ≥ mild (OR = 0.8; 95% CI 0.4–1.6) or moderate (OR = 0.9, 95% CI 0.4–1.8) paravalvular leak, whereas significantly higher mean aortic gradient (mean difference = 1.4 mmHg, 95% CI 0.03–2.7) and increased coronary compromise risk (OR = 7.2; 95% CI 1.5–34.9), compared with type 1 BAV. Meanwhile, the incidence of death (OR = 1.2; 95% CI 0.5–3.1), stroke (OR = 0.5; 95% CI 0.1–2.4), and new pacemaker (OR = 0.6; 95% CI 0.2–2.2) at 30 days were not significantly different between the BAV morphologies (p > 0.05). The treatment effect heterogeneity across the studies for the above outcomes were low. Conclusions: The patients with type 0 BAV appear to have similar short-term outcomes after TAVI compared with type 1 BAV. Whereas, TAVI for type 0 BAV aortic stenosis might lead to an elevated coronary obstruction risk and suboptimal aortic valvular hemodynamics. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC8604151/ /pubmed/34805325 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.771789 Text en Copyright © 2021 Du, Wang, Liu, Guo, Han, Shen, Jia, Yu, Han, Shi, Zhao and Zhou. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Du, Yu
Wang, Zhijian
Liu, Wei
Guo, Yonghe
Han, Wei
Shen, Hua
Jia, Shuo
Yu, Yi
Han, Kangning
Shi, Dongmei
Zhao, Yingxin
Zhou, Yujie
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 vs. Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 vs. Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 vs. Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 vs. Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 vs. Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Sievers Type 0 vs. Type 1 Bicuspid Aortic Valve Morphology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort transcatheter aortic valve implantation in sievers type 0 vs. type 1 bicuspid aortic valve morphology: systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8604151/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34805325
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.771789
work_keys_str_mv AT duyu transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangzhijian transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuwei transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT guoyonghe transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hanwei transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shenhua transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jiashuo transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yuyi transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hankangning transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shidongmei transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhaoyingxin transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhouyujie transcatheteraorticvalveimplantationinsieverstype0vstype1bicuspidaorticvalvemorphologysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis