Dataset Information

A meta-analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

ABSTRACT: Background:Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) is indicated in patients with intermediate or higher surgical risk. Latest trials showed TAVR, and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) perform similarly at 1-year for the composite outcomes of mortality, stroke and rehospitalization. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare individual outcomes at 1-year for TAVR compared to SAVR in low-risk patients. Methods:PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central were searched for all the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported 1-year comparative outcomes of TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Our conclusions are based upon the random-effects model using DerSimonian-Laird estimator. Results:Data from 4 trials and 2887 randomized patients showed that TAVR had lower rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR at 1-year follow-up (P < 0.05 for all). Also, TAVR was also associated with a significantly higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation and moderate-severe paravalvular leak (P < 0.05). Conclusions:The latest randomised trial data demonstrates that in short-term, TAVR is safe and effective in reducing all-cause mortality or stroke. Longer follow-up of RCTs is needed to determine the durability of clinical benefits in TAVR over SAVR in low-risk patients.

SUBMITTER: Malik AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7008096 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A meta-analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Malik Aaqib H AH Zaid Syed S Ahmad Hasan H Goldberg Joshua J Dutta Tanya T Undemir Cenap C Cohen Martin M Aronow Wilbert S WS Lansman Steven L SL

Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC 20200101 1

<h4>Background</h4>Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) is indicated in patients with intermediate or higher surgical risk. Latest trials showed TAVR, and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) perform similarly at 1-year for the composite outcomes of mortality, stroke and rehospitalization. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare individual outcomes at 1-year for TAVR compared to SAVR in low-risk patients.<h4>Met ...[more]

PMID: 32095133

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: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.

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:ImportanceIn the CoreValve High-Risk Trial, patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis had similar clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) over 5 years of follow-up, with mortality rates of more than 50% in both groups.ObjectiveTo describe the long-term health status of surviving patients randomized to self-expanding TAVR vs SAVR.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial included patients at high surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis who completed a baseline Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and were randomized to either self-expanding TAVR or SAVR from 45 US clinical sites. Patients were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2012. Analysis began May 2018 and ended June 2020.Main outcomes and measuresChange in KCCQ and the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey over 5 years, as assessed by repeated-measures analysis of covariance. Because there were significant interactions between access site and treatment for 1-month health status outcomes, all analyses were stratified by access site (iliofemoral or noniliofemoral).ResultsOf 713 patients, 377 (53%) were men, and the mean (SD) age was 83 (7) years. Prior to treatment, the mean (SD) KCCQ overall summary score (range, 0-100; higher score indicated better health status) was 47 (23), indicating substantial health status impairment. Among surviving patients, the KCCQ overall summary score increased significantly in both groups with greater early benefit with iliofemoral TAVR than SAVR (1-month difference, 16.8 points; 95% CI, 12.4-21.2). However, this early treatment difference between TAVR and SAVR was no longer apparent by 6 months, and there was no significant difference in health status between groups thereafter. At 5 years, 44% (134 of 305) of patients who underwent iliofemoral TAVR and 39% (105 of 266) who underwent SAVR were alive in this high-risk elderly cohort. Among surviving patients for whom health status data were available, 61% (48 of 79) in the TAVR group and 65% (46 of 71) in the SAVR group had KCCQ overall summary score more than 60 (P = .61). In the noniliofemoral cohort, there were no significant health status differences at any time between TAVR and SAVR. Results were similar for individual KCCQ domains and the Short-Form Health Survey.Conclusions and relevanceIn high-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis, there was an early health status benefit with self-expanding iliofemoral TAVR vs SAVR but no difference between groups in long-term health status. Although mortality at 5 years was high in this population, the majority of surviving patients continued to report reasonable health status.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01240902.

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.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomized 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. OBJECTIVES:The 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. METHODS:Using 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. RESULTS:In 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. CONCLUSIONS:Among 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

A meta-analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Publications

A meta-analysis of 1-year outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets