Dataset Information

Stroke Severity in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

An assessment of the comparative incidence of fatal or disabling stroke may influence choice of intervention for patients with severe aortic stenosis. We explored whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with a lower incidence of fatal or disabling stroke, compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Materials & methods

We classified stroke into two categories; fatal or disabling, or non-disabling, and completed meta-analyses for each. We explored randomised controlled trials to assess the effect publication year, predicted operative risk, and route of TAVI access.

Results

There was no difference between treatment groups per 100 person years of follow up for disabling or non-disabling stroke outcomes. In a stratified analysis by year of publication, there was a lower rate of fatal or disabling stroke with TAVI in trials published after 2015, compared to those published in 2015 or before (p-interaction = 0.01 at 30 days). Higher proportions of transfemoral route access (>90%), more common in recent trials, were associated with a lower rate of fatal or disabling stroke (p-interaction = 0.03 at 30 days). Lower average surgical risk scores were associated with lower rates of fatal or disabling stroke (p = 0.02 at 30 days).

Conclusion

We found that treatment of aortic stenosis with TAVI compared with SAVR was not associated with an overall reduced risk in fatal or disabling stroke. Subgroup analyses suggested a lower risk of fatal or disabling stroke with TAVI in situations which reflect contemporary practice.

SUBMITTER: Synnott P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8600126 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRandomized 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.ObjectivesThe 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsAmong 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.