Propensity matched comparison of TAVI and SAVR in intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease: a subgroup analysis from the German Aortic Valve Registry

Saudi Heart Association/National Heart Center/Saudi Arabian Cardiac Interventional Society/Saudi Society for Cardiac Surgeons/Saudi Cardiac Imaging Group 2023 TAVI Guidelines

Saudi Arabia has seen a significant improvement in its healthcare system over the past four decades resulting in an increase in life-expectancy. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has spread widely in Saudi Arabia and has become a routine procedure in many centers. The expanding clinical indications and the availability of the technology have made it possible for many large and intermediate centers all over the country to commence their own TAVI programs. So, the aim of this document is to standardize TAVI practices in different Saudi Arabian centers through reasonable guidelines based on the evaluation and summarization of the best available evidence. The review committee, composed of different experts in several aspects of the management of patient undergoing TAVI, based their recommendations on the reviewed and analyzed evidence and the class and level of recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached by the panel.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in chronic kidney disease: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) are a challenging and understudied population. Specifically, the late outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with CKD remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To compare overall mortality risk in patients with moderate-to-severe CKD following TAVI versus SAVR.

METHODS

Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of studies published by August 2022.

RESULTS

Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Patients who underwent TAVI had a higher 5-year mortality compared with patients undergoing SAVR in the overall population (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.44-1.69, P < 0.001) and in populations with similar risk scores (HR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01-1.31, P = 0.035). The landmark analysis revealed a lower risk of 30-day mortality with TAVI (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94, P = 0.023), followed by similar risk until 7.5 months (HR 1, 95% CI 0.78-1.27, P = 0.978). In contrast, the landmark analysis beyond 7.5 months yielded a reversal of the HR in favor of SAVR (TAVI with HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.08-1.49 P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CKD, TAVI provides an initial survival benefit over SAVR. However, in the long run, a significant survival benefit of SAVR over TAVI was observed. Our findings highlight the need for randomized controlled trials to investigate outcomes in this special population.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for pure aortic regurgitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 33,484 patients

INTRODUCTION

The published studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are conflicting. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare TAVI with SAVR in pure AR.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until 23 June 2023. Review Manager was used for statistical analysis. The risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to compare dichotomous outcomes. Continuous outcomes were compared using the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. The inconsistency test (I2) assessed the heterogeneity. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of included studies. We evaluated the strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale.

RESULTS

We included six studies with 5633 patients in the TAVI group and 27,851 in SAVR. In-hospital mortality was comparable between TAVI and SAVR (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.56, 1.42], P = 0.63) (I2 = 86%, P < 0.001). TAVI was favored over SAVR regarding in-hospital stroke (RR = 0.50; 95% CI [0.39, 0.66], P < 0.001) (I2 = 11%, P = 0.34), in-hospital acute kidney injury (RR = 0.56; 95% CI: [0.41, 0.76], P < 0.001) (I2 = 91%, P < 0.001), major bleeding (RR = 0.23; 95% CI: [0.17, 0.32], P < 0.001) (I2 = 78%, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital say (MD = - 4.76 days; 95% CI: [- 5.27, - 4.25], P < 0.001) (I2 = 88%, P < 0.001). In contrast, TAVI was associated with a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (RR = 1.68; 95% CI: [1.50, 1.88], P < 0.001) (I2 = 0% P = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

TAVI reduces in-hospital stroke and is associated with better safety outcomes than SAVR in patients with pure AR.

Comparative Analysis of TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) and Surgical Valve Replacement for Low-Risk Patients

"Aortic stenosis" (AS) refers to a cardiac condition in which the aortic valve narrows, creating an obstruction that hinders the flow of blood from the left ventricle to the aorta. This contraction of the arteries influences normal blood circulation, leading to elevated pressure within the left ventricle and potentially culminating in heart failure. The management of AS typically involves two primary treatments, i.e. "surgical aortic valve replacement" (SAVR) and "transcatheter aortic valve replacement" (TAVR). In both cases, the goal is to replace a dysfunctional aortic valve with a functional substitute. Presently, TAVR has gained much preference over SAVR in clinical practice. However, there is a dearth of comprehensive research directly comparing the real-world outcomes of TAVR and SAVR. In recent years, TAVR has emerged as an attractive alternative to SAVR, yet studies that provide a detailed comparison of their real-world solutions are limited. This review article assesses the mortality of patients who underwent TAVR vis-a-vis patients who underwent SAVR.

German Heart Surgery Report 2022: The Annual Updated Registry of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Based on a longtime voluntary registry, founded by the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (GSTCVS/DGTHG) in 1980, well-defined data of all cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery procedures performed in 78 German heart surgery departments during the year 2022 are analyzed. Under the decreasing interference of the worldwide coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a total of 162,167 procedures were submitted to the registry. A total of 93,913 of these operations are summarized as heart surgery procedures in a classical sense. The unadjusted in-hospital survival rate for the 27,994 isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures (relationship on-/off-pump 3.2:1) was 97.5%. For the 38,492 isolated heart valve procedures (20,272 transcatheter interventions included) it was 96.9%, and for the registered pacemaker/implantable cardioverter-defibrillator procedures (19,531) 99.1%, respectively. Concerning short- and long-term circulatory support, a total of 2,737 extracorporeal life support/extracorporeal membrane oxygenation implantations, respectively 672 assist device implantations (L-/ R-/ BVAD, TAH) were registered. In 2022, 356 isolated heart transplantations, 228 isolated lung transplantations, and 5 combined heart-lung transplantations were performed. This annually updated registry of the GSTCVS/DGTHG represents voluntary public reporting by accumulating actual information for nearly all heart surgical procedures in Germany, constitutes advancements in heart medicine, and represents a basis for quality management for all participating institutions. In addition, the registry demonstrates that the provision of cardiac surgery in Germany is up to date, appropriate, and nationwide patient treatment is always available.

Cardiac Surgery 2022 Reviewed

PubMed displayed almost 37,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2022." As before, we used the PRISMA approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. We focused on coronary and conventional valve surgery, their overlap with interventional alternatives, and briefly assessed surgery for aorta or terminal heart failure. In the field of coronary artery disease (CAD), key manuscripts addressed prognostic implications of invasive treatment options, classically compared modern interventions (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), and addressed technical aspects of CABG. The general direction in 2022 confirms the superiority of CABG over PCI in patients with anatomically complex chronic CAD and supports an infarct-preventative effect as underlying mechanism. In addition, the relevance of proper surgical technique to achieve durable graft patency and the need for optimal medical treatment in CABG patients was impressively illustrated. In structural heart disease, the comparisons of interventional and surgical techniques have been characterized by prognostic and mechanistic investigations underscoring the need for durable treatment effects and reductions of valve-related complications. Early surgery for most valve pathologies appears to provide significant survival advantages, and two publications on the Ross operation prototypically illustrate an inverse association between long-term survival and valve-related complications. For surgical treatment of heart failure, the first xenotransplantation was certainly dominant, and in the aortic surgery field, innovations in arch surgery prevailed. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.