Dataset Information

The safety and efficacy of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

Transfemoral Trans-catheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TF-TAVR) is a safe and effective therapy compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients across all risk profiles using balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV). Our aim was to compare safety and efficacy of BEV vs. SEV in high-risk patients undergoing TF-TAVR.

Methods and results

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of sciences for studies on patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 (VARC-2) criteria were also examined. Six studies with 2,935 patients (1,439 to BEV and 1,496 to SEV) were included. BEV was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (2.2% vs. 4.5%; RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.31-0.82; p < 0.006) and cardiovascular mortality [(2.5% vs. 4.3%; RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32-0.90; p = 0.01) at 30 days compared with SEV. Implantation of more than one valve per procedure (0.78% vs. 5.11%; RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.07-0.31; p < 0.00001), and moderate/severe AR/PVL (2.5% vs. 9.01%; RR: 0.3; 95% CI: 0.17-0.48); p < 0.00001) were also lower in the BEV arm.

Conclusion

BEV TAVR is associated with reduced all-cause mortality (High level of GRADE evidence), cardiovascular mortality (very low level) at 30 days compared with SEV TAVR in high surgical risk patients. Data are necessary to determine if the difference in outcomes persists in longer-term and if the same effects are seen in lower-risk patients.

Systematic review registration

identifier, CRD42020181190.

SUBMITTER: Senguttuvan NB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10283153 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The safety and efficacy of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

Senguttuvan Nagendra Boopathy NB Bhatt Hemal H Balakrishnan Vinod Kumar VK Krishnamoorthy Parasuram P Goel Sunny S Reddy Pothireddy M K PMK Subramanian Vinodhini V Claessen Bimmer E BE Kumar Ashish A Majmundar Monil M Ro Richard R Lerakis Stamatios S Jayaraj Ramamoorthi R Kalra Ankur A Flather Marcus M Dangas George G Tang Gilbert H L GHL

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 20230525

<h4>Aim</h4>Transfemoral Trans-catheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TF-TAVR) is a safe and effective therapy compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients across all risk profiles using balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV). Our aim was to compare safety and efficacy of BEV vs. SEV in high-risk patients undergoing TF-TAVR.<h4>Methods and results</h4>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Clinicaltrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of sciences for studies on patients wit ...[more]

PMID: 37351289

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCoronary obstruction during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a rare, yet life-threatening, complication. The routine use of left main (LM) protection with or without stent placement in high-risk patients remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of LM protection during TAVR and identify anatomic factors associated with need for stent placement.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed all TAVR cases (native and valve-in-valve) performed in our institution between 2014 and 2019 and identified patients who underwent LM protection with a coronary wire, balloon, and/or stent during the procedure. We compared the pre-TAVR computed tomography aortic root characteristics, procedural data, short-, and long-term outcomes among the patients who eventually received an LM stent and those who did not.ResultsAmong 1925 TAVR patients, 41 (2.1%) underwent LM protection, and 10 of them (25%) had eventually a stent placed in the LM for threatened obstruction after valve deployment. In the native TAVR group (n = 35), 8 patients underwent LM stenting. A larger TAVR prosthesis, larger annular circumference (83.8 vs 76.1 mm; P = .038), lower ratio of sinotubular junction diameter to prosthesis size (1.02 vs 1.11; P = .032), and longer left coronary cusp (15.1 vs 13.9 mm; P = .18) were associated with higher incidence of LM stenting. In the valve-in-valve TAVR group (n = 6), 5 patients had a valve-to-coronary distance of less than 4 mm, and 2 of them received an LM stent. Both stent and nonstent groups had excellent outcomes with no major adverse cardiovascular events or coronary obstruction at 30 days. After a median follow-up of 351 days, 4 patients died (9.7%) (1 in the stent and 3 in the nonstent group), without any cases of late coronary obstruction or percutaneous coronary intervention in either group.ConclusionsLM protection with a coronary guidewire, balloon, or stent is a safe and effective method of coronary protection during TAVR in appropriately selected high-risk patients. Annular circumference, prosthesis size, left coronary cusp length, LM ostial height, and ratio of sinotubular junction to prosthesis size are important predictors of stent deployment.

Dataset Information

The safety and efficacy of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

Aim

Methods and results

Conclusion

Systematic review registration

Publications

The safety and efficacy of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets