CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

A Randomized Study of Distal Filter Protection Versus Conventional Treatment During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Attenuated Plaque Identified by Intravascular Ultrasound Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents: the assessment of dual antiplatelet therapy with drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES) study Frailty Is Intertwined With Heart Failure: Mechanisms, Prevalence, Prognosis, Assessment, and Management Assessment of coronary atherosclerosis by IVUS and IVUS-based imaging modalities: progression and regression studies, tissue composition and beyond Comparison of intravascular ultrasound guided versus angiography guided drug eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Surgery Does Not Improve Survival in Patients With Isolated Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation Phenomapping for Novel Classification of Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction Temporal Trends in Inpatient Use of Intravascular Imaging Among Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States Derivation, Validation, and Prognostic Utility of a Prediction Rule for Nonresponse to Clopidogrel: The ABCD-GENE Score Mechanical circulatory support devices in advanced heart failure: 2020 and beyond

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.