Cargando…
Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis
Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome o...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9866823/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36675469 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020541 |
_version_ | 1784876187553628160 |
---|---|
author | Formica, Francesco Gallingani, Alan Tuttolomondo, Domenico Hernandez-Vaquero, Daniel D’Alessandro, Stefano Pattuzzi, Claudia Çelik, Mevlüt Singh, Gurmeet Ceccato, Evelina Niccoli, Giampaolo Lorusso, Roberto Nicolini, Francesco |
author_facet | Formica, Francesco Gallingani, Alan Tuttolomondo, Domenico Hernandez-Vaquero, Daniel D’Alessandro, Stefano Pattuzzi, Claudia Çelik, Mevlüt Singh, Gurmeet Ceccato, Evelina Niccoli, Giampaolo Lorusso, Roberto Nicolini, Francesco |
author_sort | Formica, Francesco |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49–3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78–1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40–0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29–3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18–0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9866823 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98668232023-01-22 Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis Formica, Francesco Gallingani, Alan Tuttolomondo, Domenico Hernandez-Vaquero, Daniel D’Alessandro, Stefano Pattuzzi, Claudia Çelik, Mevlüt Singh, Gurmeet Ceccato, Evelina Niccoli, Giampaolo Lorusso, Roberto Nicolini, Francesco J Clin Med Systematic Review Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49–3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78–1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40–0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29–3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18–0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention. MDPI 2023-01-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9866823/ /pubmed/36675469 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020541 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Systematic Review Formica, Francesco Gallingani, Alan Tuttolomondo, Domenico Hernandez-Vaquero, Daniel D’Alessandro, Stefano Pattuzzi, Claudia Çelik, Mevlüt Singh, Gurmeet Ceccato, Evelina Niccoli, Giampaolo Lorusso, Roberto Nicolini, Francesco Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis |
title | Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis |
title_full | Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis |
title_short | Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | redo surgical aortic valve replacement versus valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and reconstructed time-to-event meta-analysis |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9866823/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36675469 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm12020541 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT formicafrancesco redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT gallinganialan redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT tuttolomondodomenico redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT hernandezvaquerodaniel redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT dalessandrostefano redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT pattuzziclaudia redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT celikmevlut redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT singhgurmeet redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT ceccatoevelina redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT niccoligiampaolo redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT lorussoroberto redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis AT nicolinifrancesco redosurgicalaorticvalvereplacementversusvalveinvalvetranscatheteraorticvalveimplantationasystematicreviewandreconstructedtimetoeventmetaanalysis |