CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Venous and Arterial Thromboembolism in Patients With Cancer: JACC: CardioOncology State-of-the-Art Review The Art of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement in Valve-in-Ring and Valve-in-Mitral-Annular-Calcification Procedures Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Results From the CABANA Trial Long-Term Outcomes of Patients With Mediastinal Radiation–Associated Coronary Artery Disease Undergoing Coronary Revascularization With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Does pulsed field ablation regress over time? A quantitative temporal analysis of pulmonary vein isolation Evolving insights into the role of local shear stress in late stent failure from neoatherosclerosis formation and plaque destabilization 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee Thirty-Day Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study Results Functional Mitral Regurgitation Outcome and Grading in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction Rivaroxaban Is Associated With Higher Rates of Gastrointestinal Bleeding Than Other Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Nationwide Propensity Score–Weighted Study

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.