CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Pulmonary artery denervation for treatment of a patient with pulmonary hypertension secondary to left heart disease Short Length of Stay After Elective Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Not Associated With Increased Early or Late Readmission Risk Myocardial bridging of the left anterior descending coronary artery is associated with reduced myocardial perfusion reserve: a 13N-ammonia PET study Management of Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: Evolving Concepts in Timing of Valve Replacement Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty as a Bridge to Aortic Valve Replacement: A Contemporary Nationwide Perspective Thrombotic Versus Bleeding Risk After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: JACC Review Topic of the Week 5-Year Outcomes After TAVR With Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: Results From the CHOICE Randomized Clinical Trial Assessment and Quantitation of Stent Results by Intracoronary Optical Coherence Tomography Randomized Evaluation of TriGuard 3 Cerebral Embolic Protection After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: REFLECT II Serial intravascular ultrasound analysis of the main and side branches in bifurcation lesions treated with the T-stenting technique

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.