CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

经导管主动脉瓣置换

Abstract

Recommended Article

Chimney technique in a TAVR-in-TAVR procedure with high risk of left main artery ostium occlusion Minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement: The new standard for surgeons and cardiologists using transfemoral access? Third-Generation Balloon and Self-Expandable Valves for Aortic Stenosis in Large and Extra-Large Aortic Annuli From the TAVR-LARGE Registry Outcomes 2 Years After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients at Low Surgical Risk Online Quantitative Aortographic Assessment of Aortic Regurgitation After TAVR: Results of the OVAL Study 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement vs Surgical Replacement in Patients With Pure Aortic Insufficiency The Utility of Rapid Atrial Pacing Immediately Post-TAVR to Predict the Need for Pacemaker Implantation

Review Article2019 May 25. pii: S0002-9149(19)30584-3.

JOURNAL:Am J Cardiol. Article Link

Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-to-Intermediate Surgical Risk Cohort

Ando T, Ashraf S, Villablanca P et al. Keywords: transcatheter aortic valve implantation; surgical aortic valve replacement; low-to-intermediate surgical risk cohort

ABSTRACT

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been used to treat high surgical risk cohorts but has been expanded to treat low-to-intermediate risk cohort as well. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-to-intermediate risk cohort. We queried PUBMED, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrial.gov for relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials that compared at least one of the outcomes of interest between TAVI and SAVR were included. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model to compare the risk of the primary outcome between the 2 procedures. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality or disabling/major stroke at 1 year. Seven studies with a total of 7,143 patients (3,665 TAVI) were included. All-cause mortality or disabling/major stroke at 30 days (6 studies, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.03) was similar between TAVI and SAVR but was significantly lower in TAVI at 1 year (5 studies, RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98). All-cause mortality was similar at both 30 days (7 studies, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.21) and 1 year (6 studies, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.04). Disabling/major stroke was similar between the 2 procedures (6 studies, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.12) at 30 days but was significantly lower in TAVI at 1 year (5 studies RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98). Age, gender, diabetes, and surgical risk score did not modulate the primary outcome. TAVI had a significantly lower composite of all-cause mortality or disabling/major stroke at 1 year compared with SAVR in low-to-intermediate surgical risk cohort.