Tehran University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share By
Trends in Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Patients With Low-Surgical Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Publisher Pubmed



Kazemian S1, 2 ; Fallahtafti P2, 3 ; Sharifi M2 ; Mohammadi NSH1, 2 ; Soleimani H1, 2 ; Moghadam AS2 ; Karimi E2, 3 ; Sattar Y4 ; Jenab Y1, 2 ; Mehrani M1, 2 ; Hajizeinali A2 ; Iskander M5 ; Sabet MF6 ; Salehi N7 Show All Authors
Authors
  1. Kazemian S1, 2
  2. Fallahtafti P2, 3
  3. Sharifi M2
  4. Mohammadi NSH1, 2
  5. Soleimani H1, 2
  6. Moghadam AS2
  7. Karimi E2, 3
  8. Sattar Y4
  9. Jenab Y1, 2
  10. Mehrani M1, 2
  11. Hajizeinali A2
  12. Iskander M5
  13. Sabet MF6
  14. Salehi N7
  15. Alazizi K8
  16. Hakim D9
  17. Alam M10
  18. Hosseini K1, 2

Source: Journal of the American Heart Association Published:2024


Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This meta-analysis aims to elucidate outcome trends following TAVR versus SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and low-surgical risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception until May 2024, to identify studies comparing TAVR versus SAVR in patients with low-surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score <4%). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, stroke, disabling stroke, rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, aortic valve reintervention, permanent pacemaker implantation, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. Binary random-effects models were used to compare the risk of each outcome across various follow-up intervals and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias-2 tool. The meta-analysis included 6 randomized trials including 4682 patients. TAVR was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality than SAVR in the 30-day (hazard ratio [HR: 0.45] [95% CI: 0.26–0.77], I2: 0%) and 30-day to 1-year (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.37–0.81], I2: 16%) follow-ups. However, the risk of all-cause mortality was similar during >1-year follow-ups. TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular mortality, disabling stroke, rehospitalization, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and a higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation compared with SAVR during the 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality within the first year of post-procedural follow-up compared with SAVR. However, the risk of all-cause mortality was similar in >1-year follow-ups. © 2024 The Author(s).
Other Related Docs