An updated meta-analysis of TAVR in patients at intermediate risk for SAVR

Trends in Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Patients With Low-Surgical Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist on long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This meta-analysis aims to elucidate outcome trends following TAVR versus SAVR in patients with severe aortic stenosis and low-surgical risk.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception until May 2024, to identify studies comparing TAVR versus SAVR in patients with low-surgical risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality score <4%). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, stroke, disabling stroke, rehospitalization, myocardial infarction, aortic valve reintervention, permanent pacemaker implantation, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. Binary random-effects models were used to compare the risk of each outcome across various follow-up intervals and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias-2 tool. The meta-analysis included 6 randomized trials including 4682 patients. TAVR was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality than SAVR in the 30-day (hazard ratio [HR: 0.45] [95% CI: 0.26-0.77], I2: 0%) and 30-day to 1-year (HR: 0.55 [95% CI: 0.37-0.81], I2: 16%) follow-ups. However, the risk of all-cause mortality was similar during >1-year follow-ups. TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular mortality, disabling stroke, rehospitalization, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and a higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation compared with SAVR during the 30-day follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality within the first year of post-procedural follow-up compared with SAVR. However, the risk of all-cause mortality was similar in >1-year follow-ups.

Comparing functional and quality of life outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare functional and health related quality of life outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with critical aortic stenosis (AS) across low to high-risk surgical candidates. These patient-centred factors will be compared between both groups in the short to medium term time frames and will aid in shared decision making between patients and healthcare workers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials which compared TAVI with SAVR and reported on quality of life (QoL) and functional scores. The scores used were the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), Euroqol-5DL (EQ5DL), the short form-36/12 (SF-36/12) and the NYHA.

RESULTS

We identified eight trials with a total of 8898 participants. Both groups showed improvements from baseline at one month. At one month there was a statistically significant difference in standardised mean difference (SMD) in favour of TAVI for EQ5DL (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.26,0.49), KCCQ (SMD 0.53,95% CI 0.48, 0.58), SF physical summary (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.78) and SF mental summary (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 - 0.40). At one year there was no statistically significant difference between any of these QoL metrics. For NYHA, no significant difference in odds ratio of class III/IV was observed at one month between TAVI and SAVR (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83, 1.07), however, TAVI was associated with reduced odds ratio of NYHA class I/II at one year (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78, 0.98).

CONCLUSION

Both groups were associated with improvements in QoL and functional outcomes with TAVI reporting more significant improvements in QoL at one-month post-procedures. No significant improvements between groups were seen at one year. This is the largest meta-analysis comparing post-operative health-related quality of life outcomes post SAVR and TAVI and has major implications in shared decision making for the treatment of aortic stenosis.

Cerebral Tissue Oxygen Saturation Is Enhanced in Patients following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Retrospective Study

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a relevant alteration in cerebral tissue oxygen saturation (rSO2) could be detected following TAVI. Retrospective data analysis included 275 patients undergoing TAVI between October 2016 and December 2020. Overall, rSO2 significantly increased following TAVI (64.6 ± 10% vs. 68.1 ± 10%, p < 0.01). However, a significant rise was only observed in patients with a preoperative rSO2 < 60%. Of the hemodynamic confounders studied, hemoglobin, mean arterial pressure and blood pH were lowered, while central venous pressure and arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) were slightly elevated (PaCO2: 39 (36−43) mmHg vs. 42 (37−47) mmHg, p = 0.03; pH: 7.41 (7.3−7.4) vs. 7.36 (7.3−7.4), p < 0.01). Multivariate linear regression modeling identified only hemoglobin as a predictor of altered rSO2. Patients with a EuroScore II above 4% and an extended ICU stay were found to have lower rSO2, while no difference was observed in patients with postoperative delirium or between the implanted valve types. Further prospective studies that eliminate differences in potential confounding variables are necessary to confirm the rise in rSO2. Future research should provide more information on the value of cerebral oximetry for identifying high-risk patients who will require further clinical interventions in the setting of the TAVI procedure.

MitraClip for mitral valve regurgitation and transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis: state-of-the-art

There is a worldwide expansion in percutaneous therapy for valvular heart disease. Rapidly evolving technology and the general increase in life expectancy will support the evolution of new treatment options dedicated to structural heart interventions. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis and percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip system for severe mitral regurgitation have been demonstrated as a feasible, innovative alternative for surgical treatment. Despite the inequality in clinical experience, both procedures have encouraging results and now are a part of everyday clinical practice. More importantly, rapid development is expected in the next decades. However, the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic imposed redistribution of healthcare resources. Hospitals were obliged to modify their workflow and limit TAVI and MitraClip procedures to urgent or in highly symptomatic patients. Despite this encumbrance improvement in technology and experience supported by robust evidence from current studies might extend indications for both procedures. The future holds promise for this treatment modality to become the preferred procedure for all patients despite age or risk and reserving surgical treatment for a minority. Thus, we present state-of-the-art and current evidence for both methods assumed to change the paradigm of treatment of valvular heart failure in the future.

State of the Art Management of Aortic Valve Disease in Ankylosing Spondylitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cardiac involvement in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) generally manifests itself as aortic insufficiency, aortitis, disturbance in cardiac conduction, and myocardial dysfunction. We have used a case-based approach to review the current state of the art knowledge regarding the diagnosis and management of aortic valve disease and aortitis in patients with AS.

RECENT FINDINGS

The risk for aortic valve disease and aortic valve replacement or repair is significantly higher than in people without AS, and this risk increases with age. Echocardiography, cardiac MRI, and CT can serve as effective tools for screening and follow-up. Surgical repair/replacement remains the mainstay of therapy for aortic insufficiency and aortic dilation, whereas transcatheter-based techniques may be favorable in the setting of aortic stenosis. Aortic valve and atrioventricular conduction abnormalities contribute to overall cardiovascular burden in AS. Optimal timing and therapeutic technique are dependent on assessment of overall risk and serial follow-up.

Meta-Analysis of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low Surgical Risk Patients

Current guidelines recommend transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for patients with severe aortic stenosis at elevated surgical risk, but not for patients at low surgical risk. Our objective is to compare major clinical outcomes and procedural complications with TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, identified through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Count data were pooled across trials using random-effects models with inverse variance weighting to obtain relative risks (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three randomized controlled trials (n = 2,629) were included. At 30 days, TAVI was associated with a substantial reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.20 to 0.99), atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.27, 95%CI: 0.17 to 0.41), life threatening/disabling bleeding (RR: 0.29, 95%CI: 0.12 to 0.69), and acute kidney injury (RR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.14 to 0.57). The reduction in atrial fibrillation persisted at 12 months (RR: 0.32, 95%CI: 0.21 to 0.49). However, TAVI patients had an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation at both 30 days (RR: 3.13, 95%CI: 1.36 to 7.21) and 12 months (RR: 2.99, 95%CI: 1.19 to 7.51). Due to the low absolute numbers of events, results were inconclusive at 30 days and 12 months for cardiovascular mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction. In conclusion, while some outcomes remained inconclusive, these data suggest that TAVI should be considered as a first-line therapy for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in low surgical risk patients.

TAVI and the future of aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular pathology and has traditionally been managed using surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). A large proportion of affected patient demographics, however, are unfit to undergo major surgery given underlying comorbidities. Since its introduction in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has gained popularity and transformed the care available to different-risk group patients with severe symptomatic AS. Specific qualifying criteria and refinement of TAVI techniques are fundamental in determining successful outcomes for intervention. Given the successful applicability in high-risk patients, TAVI has been further developed and trialed in intermediate and low-risk patients. Within intermediate-risk patient groups, TAVI was shown to be noninferior to SAVR evaluating 30-d mortality and secondary endpoints such as the risk of bleeding, development of acute kidney injury, and length of admission. The feasibility of expanding TAVI procedures into low-risk patients is still a controversial topic in the literature. A number of trials have recently been published which demonstrate TAVI as noninferior and even superior over SAVR for primary study endpoints.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low and intermediate risk: A risk specific meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an option for treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high risk for death with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It is unknown whether TAVI can be safely introduced to intermediate- and low-risk patients.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of TAVI and SAVR in patients with intermediate- and low-surgical risk.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 15, 2019.

Study selection

We included randomized controlled trials comparing TAVI with SAVR in patients with intermediate- and low-surgical risk.

Data extraction

Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Two independent reviewers completed citation screening, data abstraction, and risk assessment. Primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 12 months.

Data Synthesis

A total of 5 trials randomizing 6390 patients were included. In patients with low risk, TAVI was associated with a significant reduction in the composite of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke compared with SAVR (RR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.40–0.79; I² = 0%). This benefit was not replicated in patients with intermediate risk (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80–1.15; I² = 0%). Similar results were seen separately in all-cause mortality and disabling stroke when TAVI was compared with SAVR.

Conclusion

For patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low risk for death from surgery, TAVI achieved superior clinical outcomes compared to SAVR; however, these benefits were not seen in those with intermediate risk. This information may inform discussions about deciding between SAVR and TAVI for patients with low to intermediate risk separately.