CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Non-cardiac surgery in patients with coronary artery disease: risk evaluation and periprocedural management Burden of 30-Day Readmissions After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in 833,344 Patients in the United States: Predictors, Causes, and Cost Non-invasive detection of coronary inflammation using computed tomography and prediction of residual cardiovascular risk (the CRISP CT study): a post-hoc analysis of prospective outcome data Incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in a large cohort of all-comers undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Comparison of five contrast media Step-by-step manual for planning and performing bifurcation PCI: a resource-tailored approach Society of cardiac angiography and interventions: suggested management of the no-reflow phenomenon in the cardiac catheterization laboratory Cardiac MRI Endpoints in Myocardial Infarction Experimental and Clinical Trials JACC Scientific Expert Panel Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk Variation in Revascularization Practice and Outcomes in Asymptomatic Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Frequency, Regional Variation, and Predictors of Undetermined Cause of Death in Cardiometabolic Clinical Trials: A Pooled Analysis of 9259 Deaths in 9 Trials

Review ArticleVolume 74, Issue 12, September 2019

JOURNAL:J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients

DKolte, GJ Vlahakes, IF Palacios et al. Keywords: death; low risk; surgical aortic valve replacement; transcatheter aortic valve implantation; transcatheter aortic valve replacement

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a safe and effective therapeutic option for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are at prohibitive, high, or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, in low-risk patients, SAVR remains the standard therapy in current clinical practice.

 

OBJECTIVES - This study sought to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients.

 

METHODS - Electronic databases were searched from inception to March 20, 2019. RCTs comparing TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality [STS-PROM] score <4%) were included. Primary outcome was all-cause death at 1 year. Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).

 

RESULTS- The meta-analysis included 4 RCTs that randomized 2,887 patients (1,497 to TAVR and 1,390 to SAVR). The mean age of patients was 75.4 years, and the mean STS-PROM score was 2.3%. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause death (2.1% vs. 3.5%; RR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39 to 0.96; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%) and cardiovascular death (1.6% vs. 2.9%; RR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.90; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%) at 1 year. Rates of new/worsening atrial fibrillation, life-threatening/disabling bleeding, and acute kidney injury stage 2/3 were lower, whereas those of permanent pacemaker implantation and moderate/severe paravalvular leak were higher after TAVR versus SAVR. There were no significant differences between TAVR versus SAVR for major vascular complications, endocarditis, aortic valve re-intervention, and New York Heart Association functional class II.

 

CONCLUSIONS- In this meta-analysis of RCTs comparing TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients, TAVR was associated with significantly lower risk of all-cause death and cardiovascular death at 1 year. These findings suggest that TAVR may be the preferred option over SAVR in low-risk patients with severe AS who are candidates for bioprosthetic AVR.