Dataset Information

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: (1) Background: The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is expanding significantly. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during the early and mid-term follow-up period. (2) Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1- to 2-year outcomes between TAVI and SAVR. The study protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO and the results were reported according to PRISMA guidelines. (3) Results: The pooled analysis included data from eight RCTs totaling 8780 patients. TAVI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.77-0.99), significant bleeding (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.25-0.59), acute kidney injury (AKI; OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.40-0.69) and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.19-0.43). SAVR was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complication (MVC; OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.29-3.07) as well as permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; OR 2.28, 95%CI 1.45-3.57). (3) Conclusions: TAVI compared with SAVR during early and mid-term follow-up was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, significant bleeding, AKI and atrial fibrillation; however, it was associated with a higher risk of MVC and PPI.

SUBMITTER: Lerman TT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10146134 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lerman Tsahi T TT Levi Amos A Talmor-Barkan Yeela Y Kornowski Ran R

Journal of cardiovascular development and disease 20230405 4

(1) Background: The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is expanding significantly. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during the early and mid-term follow-up period. (2) Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1- to 2-year outcomes between TAVI and SAVR. The study protocol was preregist ...[more]

PMID: 37103036

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesLimited data are available from randomized trials comparing outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgery in patients with different risks and with follow-up of at least 4 years or longer. In this large, population-based cohort study, long-term mortality and morbidity were investigated in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis using a surgically implanted bioprosthesis (surgical/biological aortic valve replacement; sB-AVR) or TAVR.MethodsIndividual data from the Austrian Insurance Funds from 2010 through 2020 were analysed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed in the overall and propensity score-matched populations. Secondary outcomes included reoperation and cardiovascular events.ResultsFrom January 2010 through December 2020, a total of 18 882 patients underwent sB-AVR (n = 11 749; 62.2%) or TAVR (n = 7133; 37.8%); median follow-up was 5.8 (95% CI 5.7-5.9) years (maximum 12.3 years). The risk of all-cause mortality was higher with TAVR compared with sB-AVR: hazard ratio 1.552, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.469-1.640, P < 0.001; propensity score-matched hazard ratio 1.510, 1.403-1.625, P < 0.001. Estimated median survival was 8.8 years (95% CI 8.6-9.1) with sB-AVR versus 5 years (4.9-5.2) with TAVR. Estimated 5-year survival probability was 0.664 (0.664-0.686) with sB-AVR versus 0.409 (0.378-0.444) with TAVR overall, and 0.690 (0.674-0.707) and 0.560 (0.540-0.582), respectively, with propensity score matching. Separate subgroup analyses for patients aged 65-75 years and >75 years indicated a significant survival benefit in patients selected for sB-AVR in both groups. Other predictors of mortality were age, sex, previous heart failure, diabetes and chronic kidney disease.ConclusionsIn this retrospective national population-based study, selection for TAVR was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality compared with sB-AVR in patients ≥65 years with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in the >2-year follow-up.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials support the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis in high- and intermediate-risk patients, but the generalizability of those results in clinical practice has been challenged.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), particularly in intermediate- and high-risk patients, in a nationally representative real-world cohort.MethodsUsing data from the Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry and Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database linked to Medicare administrative claims for follow-up, 9,464 propensity-matched intermediate- and high-risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score ≥3%) U.S. patients who underwent commercial TAVR or SAVR were examined. Death, stroke, and days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year were compared, as well as discharge home, with subgroup analyses by surgical risk, demographics, and comorbidities.ResultsIn a propensity-matched cohort (median age 82 years, 48% women, median Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score 5.6%), TAVR and SAVR patients experienced no difference in 1-year rates of death (17.3% vs. 17.9%; hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.04) and stroke (4.2% vs. 3.3%; hazard ratio: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.47), and no difference was observed in the proportion of days alive and out of the hospital to 1 year (rate ratio: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.02). However, TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home after treatment (69.9% vs. 41.2%; odds ratio: 3.19; 95% CI: 2.84 to 3.58). Results were consistent across most subgroups, including among intermediate- and high-risk patients.ConclusionsAmong unselected intermediate- and high-risk patients, TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar rates of death, stroke, and DAOH to 1 year, but TAVR patients were more likely to be discharged home.

Dataset Information

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets