Dataset Information

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk of perioperative death.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL.

Study selection

Randomized trials of TAVI compared with SAVR in patients with a mean perioperative risk of death <8%.

Review methods

Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for outcomes important to patients that were selected a priori by a parallel guideline committee, including patient advisors. We used the GRADE system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence.

Results

4 trials with 3179 patients and a median follow-up of two years were included. Compared with SAVR, transfemoral TAVI was associated with reduced mortality (risk difference per 1000 patients: -30, 95% confidence interval -49 to -8, moderate certainty), stroke (-20, -37 to 1, moderate certainty), life threatening bleeding (-252, -293 to -190, high certainty), atrial fibrillation (-178, -150 to -203, moderate certainty), and acute kidney injury (-53, -39 to -62, high certainty) but increased short term aortic valve reintervention (7, 1 to 21, moderate certainty), permanent pacemaker insertion (134, 16 to 382, moderate certainty), and moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure (18, 5 to 34, moderate certainty). Compared with SAVR, transapical TAVI was associated higher mortality (57, -16 to 153, moderate certainty, P=0.015 for interaction between transfemoral versus transapical TAVI) and stroke (45, -2 to 125, moderate certainty, interaction P=0.012). No study reported long term follow-up, which is particularly important for structural valve deterioration.

Conclusions

Many patients, particularly those who have a shorter life expectancy or place a lower value on the risk of long term valve degeneration, are likely to perceive net benefit with transfemoral TAVI versus SAVR. SAVR, however, performs better than transapical TAVI, which is of interest to patients who are not candidates for transfemoral TAVI.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42016042879.

SUBMITTER: Siemieniuk RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5040923 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recently, two randomized trials, the PARTNER 3 and the Evolut Low Risk Trial, independently demonstrated that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at low surgical risk, paving the way to a progressive extension of clinical indications to TAVR. We designed a meta-analysis to compare TAVR versus SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019131125). Randomized studies comparing one-year outcomes of TAVR or SAVR were searched for within Medline, Scholar and Scopus electronic databases. A total of three randomized studies were selected, including nearly 3000 patients. After one year, the risk of cardiovascular death was significantly lower with TAVR compared to SAVR (Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.56; 95% CI 0.33-0.95; p = 0.03). Conversely, no differences were observed between the groups for one-year all-cause mortality (RR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.42-1.07; p = 0.10). Among the secondary endpoints, patients undergoing TAVR have lower risk of new-onset of atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR (RR = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17-0.39; p < 0.00001), major bleeding (RR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.14-0.65; p < 0.002) and acute kidney injury stage II or III (RR = 0.28; 95% CI 0.14-0.58; p = 0.0005). Conversely, TAVR was associated to a higher risk of aortic regurgitation (RR = 3.96; 95% CI 1.31-11.99; p = 0.01) and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR = 3.47; 95% CI 1.33-9.07; p = 0.01) compared to SAVR. No differences were observed between the groups in the risks of stroke (RR= 0.71; 95% CI 0.41-1.25; p = 0.24), transient ischemic attack (TIA; RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.53-1.83; p = 0.96), and MI (RR = 0.75; 95% CI 0.43-1.29; p = 0.29). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis, including three randomized studies and nearly 3000 patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, shows that TAVR is associated with lower CV death compared to SAVR at one-year follow-up. Nevertheless, paravalvular aortic regurgitation and pacemaker implantation still represent two weak spots that should be solved.

Project description:ImportanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be a valid alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at high operative risk with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the evidence of the benefits and harms of TAVR in patients at low operative risk is still scarce.ObjectiveTo compare the short-term and midterm outcomes after TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients with AS.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective comparative effectiveness cohort study used data from the Nationwide Finnish Registry of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Valve Stenosis of patients at low operative risk who underwent TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for severe AS from January 1, 2008, to November 30, 2017. Low operative risk was defined as a Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score less than 3% without other comorbidities of clinical relevance. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline covariates between the TAVR and SAVR cohorts.ExposuresPrimary TAVR or SAVR with a bioprosthesis for AS with or without associated coronary revascularization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were 30-day and 3-year survival.ResultsOverall, 2841 patients (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] years; 1560 [54.9%] men) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis; TAVR was performed in 325 patients and SAVR in 2516 patients. Propensity score matching produced 304 pairs with similar baseline characteristics. Third-generation devices were used in 263 patients (86.5%) who underwent TAVR. Among these matched pairs, 30-day mortality was 1.3% after TAVR and 3.6% after SAVR (P = .12). Three-year survival was similar in the study cohorts (TAVR, 85.7%; SAVR, 87.7%; P = .45). Interaction tests found no differences in terms of 3-year survival between the study cohorts in patients younger than vs older than 80 years or in patients who received recent aortic valve prostheses vs those who did not.Conclusions and relevanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement using mostly third-generation devices achieved similar short- and mid-term survival compared with SAVR in low-risk patients. Further studies are needed to assess the long-term durability of TAVR prostheses before extending their use to low-risk patients.

Project description:ImportanceThe outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis have not been studied in a large scale, multicentered, prospective fashion.ObjectiveTo evaluate the procedural safety, efficacy, and 30-day outcomes of TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis at low surgical risk.Design, setting, and participantsThe Low Risk Bicuspid Study is a prospective, single-arm trial study with inclusion/exclusion criteria developed from the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial. Follow-up is planned for 10 years. Patients underwent TAVR at 25 centers in the United States who were also participating in the Evolut Low Risk Randomized Trial from December 2018 to October 2019. Eligible patients had severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis and met American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline indications for aortic valve replacement.InterventionsPatients underwent attempted implant of an Evolut or Evolut PRO transcatheter aortic valve, with valve size based on annular measurements.Main outcomes and measuresThe prespecified primary end point was the incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30 days. The prespecified primary efficacy end point was device success defined as the absence of procedural mortality, the correct position of 1 bioprosthetic heart valve in the proper anatomical location, and the absence of more than mild aortic regurgitation postprocedure.ResultsA total of 150 patients underwent an attempted implant. Baseline characteristics include mean age of 70.3 (5.5) years, 48.0% female (n = 72), and a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 1.4 (0.6%). Most patients (136; 90.7%) had Sievers type I valve morphology. The incidence of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 1.3% (95% CI, 0.3%-5.3%) at 30 days. The device success rate was 95.3% (95% CI, 90.5%-98.1%). At 30 days, the mean (SD) AV gradient was 7.6 (3.7) mm Hg and effective orifice area was 2.3 (0.7) cm2. A new permanent pacemaker was implanted in 22 patients (15.1%). No patients had greater than mild paravalvular leak.Conclusions and relevanceTranscatheter aortic valve replacement in low-surgical risk patients with bicuspid aortic valve stenosis achieved favorable 30-day results, with low rates of death and stroke and high device success rate.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03635424.