Dataset Information

Mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis of randomised trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:To determine whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improves early (30-day) and midterm (1-year) mortality compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed an updated meta-analysis of all the currently available randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS:To identify all RCTs providing both 30-day and 1?year mortality after TAVI versus SAVR, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to and including July 2019. A risk difference (RD) and its 95% confidence interval were generated using data of prespecified outcomes in both the TAVI and SAVR groups. Study-specific estimates were pooled using inverse variance-weighted averages of RDs in the random-effects model. RESULTS:We identified seven eligible high-quality RCTs including a total of 7631 as-treated patients. Pooled analyses demonstrated significantly lower 30-day (RD -0.60%; p?=?0.046) and 1?year all-cause mortality (RD -1.12%; p?=?0.03) after TAVI than after SAVR. No funnel plot asymmetry was detected for 30-day and 1?year mortality. Meta-regression analyses indicated that RDs of 30-day and 1?year mortality between TAVI and SAVR were not modulated by mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. Bleeding complications at 30 days and 1 year and stage 2/3 acute kidney injury at 30 days were significantly less frequent after TAVI than after SAVR, whereas major vascular complications and new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days and 1 year were significantly more frequent after TAVI than after SAVR. CONCLUSION:The best evidence from the present meta-analysis of all the currently available RCTs suggests that TAVI may reduce 30-day and 1?year all-cause mortality compared with SAVR.

SUBMITTER: Takagi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7270388 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Takagi H H Hari Y Y Nakashima K K Kuno T T Ando T T

Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation 20200601 6

<h4>Background</h4>To determine whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improves early (30-day) and midterm (1-year) mortality compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed an updated meta-analysis of all the currently available randomised controlled trials (RCTs).<h4>Methods</h4>To identify all RCTs providing both 30-day and 1‑year mortality after TAVI versus SAVR, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to and including July 2019. A risk difference ...[more]

PMID: 32166571

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system.The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk.We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S.Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ?$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained.In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S.With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services national coverage determination for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) includes volume requirements for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for hospitals seeking to initiate or continue TAVR programs. Evidence regarding the association between SAVR volume and TAVR outcomes is limited.ObjectiveTo examine the association of hospital SAVR and combined SAVR and TAVR volumes with patient outcomes of TAVR procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational cohort study included 60 538 TAVR procedures performed in 438 hospitals between October 1, 2011, and December 31, 2015, among Medicare beneficiaries.Main outcomes and measuresThe associations between SAVR volume, SAVR and TAVR volumes, and risks of death, death or stroke, and readmissions within 30 days were determined using a hierarchical logistic regression model adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. The association between SAVR and SAVR and TAVR volumes and 1-year and 2-year mortality after TAVR procedures was determined using a multivariable proportional hazard model with a robust variance estimator. The associations for procedures performed within 1 year, 2 years, and for the entire period after initiation of TAVR programs were examined.ResultsAmong the 60 538 patients, 29 173 were women and 31 365 were men, with a mean (SD) age of 82.3 (8.0) years. Hospitals with high SAVR volume (mean annual volume, ≥97 per year) were more likely to adopt TAVR early and had a higher growth in TAVR volumes over time (median TAVR volume by hospitals with high SAVR volume and low SAVR volume: year 1, 32 vs 19; year 2, 48 vs 28; year 3, 82 vs 38; year 4, 118 vs 54; P < .001). In adjusted analysis, high hospital SAVR volume alone was not associated with better patient outcomes after TAVR. When hospital TAVR and SAVR volumes were jointly analyzed, patients treated in hospitals with high TAVR volume had lower 30-day mortality after TAVR (high TAVR and low SAVR vs low TAVR and low SAVR: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72-0.99; high TAVR and high SAVR vs low TAVR and high SAVR: odds ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.95), the effect of which was more pronounced when hospitals also had high SAVR volume. Patients treated in hospitals with high SAVR volume and high TAVR volume had the lowest 30-day mortality (vs hospitals with low SAVR volume and TAVR volume: odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66-0.89).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals with high SAVR volume are most likely to be fast adopters of TAVR. Hospital SAVR volume alone is not associated with better TAVR outcomes. Accumulating high volumes of TAVR is associated with lower mortality after TAVR, particularly when hospitals have high SAVR volumes. Hospitals with high caseloads of both SAVR and TAVR are likely to achieve the best outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceHospital outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be dependent on the quality of evaluation, personnel, and procedural and postprocedural care common to patients undergoing cardiac surgery.ObjectivesWe sought to assess whether those hospitals with better patient outcomes for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) subsequently achieved better TAVR outcomes after launching TAVR programs.Design, setting, and participantsThis national cohort included US patients 65 years and older. The analysis used the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Medicare Provider and Review data collected between January 1, 2010, and September 29, 2015. Only hospitals performing at least 1 SAVR prior to September 1, 2011, and performing at least 1 TAVR after this date were included in the analysis. Data analysis was completed from June 2018 to August 2018.InterventionsIsolated aortic valve replacements.Main outcomes and measuresHospital risk-adjusted 30-day mortality for SAVR in the pre-TAVR period was used as a surrogate for SAVR quality. Thirty-day and 1-year TAVR mortality rates were examined after stratification by quartile of baseline hospital risk-adjusted SAVR mortality.ResultsA total of 51 924 TAVR procedures were performed in 519 hospitals, of which 19 798 were performed at hospitals in quartile 1 (the lowest risk-adjusted SAVR mortality rate), 7663 were performed in quartile 2, 10 180 were performed in quartile 3, and 14 283 were performed in quartile 4 (the highest risk-adjusted SAVR mortality rate). Observed mortality rates at 30 days consistently increased with increasing baseline hospital SAVR risk-adjusted mortality (quartile 1, 917 patients [4.6%]; quartile 2, 381 [5.0%]; quartile 3, 521 [5.1%]; quartile 4, 800 [5.6%]; P < .001). The same pattern was observed in 1-year mortality (quartile 1, 3359 [17.0%]; quartile 2, 1337 [17.5%]; quartile 3, 1852 [18.2%]; quartile 4, 2652 [18.6%]; P < .001). After multivariable analysis, compared with the lowest quartile of SAVR mortality, undergoing TAVR at a hospital with higher baseline SAVR mortality continued to be associated with higher 30-day mortality (odds ratios: quartile 2, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.87-1.21]; quartile 3, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.26]; quartile 4, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.07-1.40]; P = .02) and 1-year mortality (hazard ratios: quartile 2, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.92-1.17]; quartile 3, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.02-1.28]; quartile 4, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.05-1.28]; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceHospitals with higher SAVR mortality rates also had higher short-term and long-term TAVR mortality after initiating TAVR programs. Quality of cardiac surgical care may be associated with a hospital's performance with new structural heart disease programs.

Dataset Information

Mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Publications

Mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure