CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

2019 Guidelines on Diabetes, Pre-Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases developed in collaboration with the EASD ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines Anticoagulation in Concomitant Chronic Kidney Disease and Atrial Fibrillation: JACC Review Topic of the Week Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-to-Intermediate Surgical Risk Cohort Lateral Wall Dysfunction Signals Onset of Progressive Heart Failure in Left Bundle Branch Block Lifestyle Modifications for Preventing and Treating Heart Failure Metformin Lowers Body Weight But Fails to Increase Insulin Sensitivity in Chronic Heart Failure Patients without Diabetes: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Summary of Updated Recommendations for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Women: JACC State-of-the-Art Review Third-Generation Balloon and Self-Expandable Valves for Aortic Stenosis in Large and Extra-Large Aortic Annuli From the TAVR-LARGE Registry Novel predictors of late lumen enlargement in distal reference segments after successful recanalization of coronary chronic total occlusion Randomized comparison of clinical outcomes between intravascular ultrasound and angiography-guided drug-eluting stent implantation for long coronary artery stenoses

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.