CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
中 文

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Recommended Article

A prospective, randomised trial of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in operable elderly patients with aortic stenosis: the STACCATO trial The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Valvular Heart Disease: Discussing the Year in Cardiovascular Medicine for 2020 in the field of valvular heart disease is Professor Helmut Baumgartner and Dr Javier Bermejo. Mark Nicholls reports Short Length of Stay After Elective Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Not Associated With Increased Early or Late Readmission Risk Comparison of Safety and Periprocedural Complications of Transfemoral Aortic Valve Replacement Under Local Anaesthesia: Minimalist Versus Complete Heart Team Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-to-Intermediate Surgical Risk Cohort Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis Predictors and Clinical Outcomes of Next-Day Discharge After Minimalist Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Role of Multimodality Imaging in Common and Complex Clinical Scenarios

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.