Dataset Information

Antihypertensive therapies in moderate or severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Hypertension confers a poor prognosis in moderate or severe aortic stenosis (AS), however, antihypertensive therapy (AHT) is often not prescribed due to the perceived deleterious effects of vasodilation and negative inotropes.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of AHT in adults with moderate or severe AS.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE and grey literature were searched without language restrictions up to 9 September 2019.

Study eligibility criteria, appraisal and synthesis methods

Two independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessments from a systematic search of observational studies and randomised controlled trials comparing AHT with a placebo or no AHT in adults with moderate or severe AS for any parameter of efficacy and safety outcomes. Conflicts were resolved by the third reviewer. Meta-analysis with pooled effect sizes using random-effects model, were estimated in R.

Main outcome measures

Mortality, Left Ventricular (LV) Mass Index, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure and LV ejection fraction RESULTS: From 3025 publications, 31 studies (26 500 patients) were included in the qualitative synthesis and 24 studies in the meta-analysis. AHT was not associated with mortality when all studies were pooled, but heterogeneity was substantial across studies. The effect size of AHT differed according to drug class. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) were associated with reduced risk of mortality (Pooled HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80, p=0.006), The differences in changes of haemodynamic or echocardiographic parameters from baseline with and without AHT did not reach statistical significance.

Conclusion

AHT appears safe, is well tolerated. RAASi were associated with clinical benefit in patients with moderate or severe AS.

SUBMITTER: Sen J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7537451 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant active cancer (AC) are considered high-risk patients and usually are not allowed to undergo surgical valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be an attractive option for them; however, little is known about the outcomes of TAVR in this subset of complex patients. Methods and results:In this meta-analysis, Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were searched (anytime up to April 2019) for studies evaluating the outcomes of TAVR in patients with or without AC. We assessed pooled estimates (with their 95% CIs) of the risk ratio (RR) for the all-cause mortality at the 30-day and 1-year follow-ups, a 4-point safety outcome (any bleeding, stroke, need for a pacemaker and acute kidney injury) and a 2-point efficacy outcome (device success and residual mean gradient (mean difference)). Three studies (5162 patients) were included. Of those patients, a total of 368 (7.1%) had AC. Apart from a significantly higher need for a postprocedural pacemaker (RR 1.29, 95%?CI 1.06 to 1.58, p=0.01), TAVR in patients with AC resulted in similar outcomes for safety and efficacy at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without AC. Patients with AC experienced similar rates of the all-cause mortality at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without (RR 0.92, 95%?CI 0.53 to 1.59, p=0.76); however, the all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients with AC at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.71, 95%?CI 1.26 to 2.33, p=0.0006). This mortality difference was independent of cancer stage (advanced or limited) at the 30-day follow-up but not at the 1-year follow-up; only patients with limited cancer stages showed similar all-cause mortality rates compared with those without cancer at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.22, 95%?CI 0.79 to 1.91, p=0.37). Conclusion:TAVR in patients with AC is associated with similar 30-day and potentially worse 1-year outcomes compared with those in patients without AC. The 1-year all-cause mortality appears to be dependent on the cancer stage. Involving a specialised oncologist who usually considers cancer stage in the decision-making process and applying additional preoperative scores such as frailty indices might refine the risk assessment process among these patients. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42019120416.

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:AimsAortic stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) are typical diseases of the elderly. Up to 16% of older adults with severe AS referred to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a concomitant diagnosis of CA. CA-AS population suffers from reduced functional capacity and worse prognosis than AS patients. As the prognostic impact of TAVR in patients with CA-AS has been historically questioned and in light of recently published evidence, we aim to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the efficacy and safety of TAVR in CA-AS patients.Methods and resultsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies: (i) evaluating mortality with TAVR as compared with medical therapy in CA-AS patients and (ii) reporting complications and clinical outcomes of TAVR in CA-AS patients as compared with patients with AS alone. A total of seven observational studies were identified: four reported mortality with TAVR, and four reported complications and clinical outcomes after TAVR of patients with CA-AS compared with AS alone patients. In patients with CA-AS, the risk of mortality was lower with TAVR (n = 44) as compared with medical therapy (n = 36) [odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.73, I2 = 0%, P = 0.001, number needed to treat = 3]. The safety profile of TAVR seems to be similar in patients with CA-AS (n = 75) as compared with those with AS alone (n = 536), with comparable risks of stroke, vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, and 30 day mortality, although CA-AS was associated with a trend towards an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.91-4.09, I2 = 0%, P = 0.085). CA is associated with a numerically higher rate of long-term mortality and rehospitalizations following TAVR in patients with CA-AS as compared with those with AS alone.ConclusionsTAVR is an effective and safe procedure in CA-AS patients, with a substantial survival benefit as compared with medical therapy, and a safety profile comparable with patients with AS alone except for a trend towards higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation.