Transapical versus conventional aortic valve replacement--a propensity-matched comparison

Similar clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarians with aortic stenosis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is the preferred treatment option for severe aortic stenosis in the elderly and in patients with comorbidities. We sought to compare outcomes after TAVI and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in octogenarians.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study conducted at our tertiary center, clinical data were gathered before and after TAVI and SAVR procedures performed from January 2013 to May 2019; follow-up completed in March 2021. The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Patients were stratified according to Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and procedure type. Propensity score-based matching was also performed.

Results

Of 542 patients who matched the inclusion criteria, 273 underwent TAVI and 269 SAVR. TAVI patients were older (85.8 ± 3.0 vs. 82.2 ± 2.2 years; P < 0.001) and had a higher mean STS score (5.0 ± 4.0 vs. 2.8 ± 1.3; P < 0.001) and EuroSCORE II (5.3 ± 4.1 vs. 2.8 ± 6.0; P < 0.001). Rates of postoperative permanent pacemaker insertion (15.0% vs. 9.3%; P = 0.040) and paravalvular leak (9.9% vs. 0.8%; P < 0.001) were higher and acute kidney injury lower (8.8% vs. 32.7%; P < 0.001) after TAVI, with no difference between treatment groups for major bleeding (11.0% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.130) or 30-day mortality (5.5% vs. 3.7%; P = 0.315). A statistically significant difference was found between TAVI and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk groups when it came to occurrence of paravalvular leak, acute kidney injury, and new onset AF (all P < 0.001).

Conclusion

This analysis of an octogenarian “real-life” population undergoing TAVI or SAVR (with a biological valve) showed similar outcomes regarding clinical endpoints in low- and medium-risk (STS score) groups.

Clinical outcomes of renal and liver transplant patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: analysis of national inpatient sample database

Background: The transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has recently gained traction as a viable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but data on its safety and clinical outcomes in transplant patients are limited.Methods: We retrieved relevant demographic and clinical outcome data from the U.S. National Inpatient Sample (NIS) for the year 2012-2015. The clinical outcomes of TAVR in renal transplant (RT) and liver transplant (LT) were ascertained using an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) on Mantzel-Hensel test.Results: A total of 62,399 TAVR patients were identified; 62,180 (99.6%) with no history of transplant, 219 (0.4%) with RT and 85 (0.1%) with LT. There was no significant difference in odds of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.25-1.5, p = 0.37), major cardiovascular, respiratory or neurological complications in patients with and without RT. Similarly, the odds of cardiac complications, renal and neurological complications between patients with and without LT were identical.Conclusion: Compared to non-transplant patients, TAVR appears to be associated with similar odds of major systemic complications or mortality in patients with a history of kidney or liver transplant.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Cardiac Surgery: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature

The number of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and a history of prior cardiac surgery has increased. Prior cardiac surgery increases the risk of adverse outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement. To evaluate the impact of prior cardiac surgery on clinical endpoints in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The clinical endpoints included in our study were 30-day mortality, 1-2-year mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), bleeding, stroke, procedural time, and duration of hospital stay. Seven studies, which included a total of 8221 patients, were selected. Our study found that TAVR was associated with a lower incidence of stroke and bleeding complications. There was no significant difference in terms of AKI, 30-day all-cause mortality, and 1-2-year all-cause mortality between the two groups. The average procedure time and duration of hospital stay were 170 min less (p ≤ 0.01) and 3.6 days shorter (p < 0.01) in patients with TAVR, respectively. In patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft and severe AS, both TAVR and SAVR are reasonable options. However, TAVR may be associated with a lower incidence of complications like stroke and perioperative bleeding, in addition to a shorter length of stay.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Renal Outcomes after Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Background

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of aortic valve replacement. However, comparative on the incidence of (AKI) following transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical valve replacement (SAVR) is sparse.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCT) and propensity-matched observational studies comparing (A) incidence of AKI and (B) incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI at 30 days after TAVR and SAVR.

Results

Twenty-six studies (20 propensity-matched studies; 6 RCTs) including 19,954 patients were analyzed. The incidence of AKI was lower after TAVR than after SAVR (7.1% vs. 12.1%, OR 0.52; 95%CI, 0.39-0.68; p<0.001, I²=57%), but the incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI was similar (2.8% vs. 4.1%, OR 0.78; 95%CI, 0.49-1.25; p=0.31, I²=70%). Similar results were observed in a sensitivity analysis including RCTs only for both AKI ([5 RCTs; 5,418 patients], 2.0% vs. 5.0%, OR 0.39; 95%CI, 0.28-0.53; p<0.001, I²=0%), and dialysis-requiring AKI ([2 RCTs; 769 patients]; 2.9% vs. 2.6%, OR 1.1; 95%CI, 0.47-2.58; p=0.83, I²=0%). However, in studies including low-intermediate risk patients only, TAVR was associated with lower incidence of AKI ([10 studies; 6,510 patients], 7.6% vs. 12.4%, OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.39-0.77, p<0.001, I²=57%), and dialysis-requiring AKI, ([10 studies; 12,034 patients], 2.0% vs. 3.6%, OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.38-0.85, p=0.005, I²=23%).

Conclusions

TAVR is associated with better renal outcomes at 30 days in comparison with SAVR, especially in patients at low-intermediate surgical risk. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of AKI on long-term outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR.

Incidence of Acute Kidney Injury in Patients with Chronic Renal Insufficiency: Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Objectives

The objective of this study is to determine incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease.

Background

The incidence of AKI in patients with preexisting renal insufficiency undergoing TAVR versus SAVR is not well described.

Methods

All patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease who underwent SAVR for aortic stenosis with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting or TAVR from 5/2008 to 6/2017. Patients requiring preoperative hemodialysis were excluded. Chronic kidney disease was defined as an estimated glomerular filtrate rate (eGFR) of < 60 mL/min/1.73 m². The incidence of postoperative AKI was compared using the RIFLE classification system for acute kidney injury.

Results

A total of 406 SAVR patients and 407 TAVR patients were included in this study. TAVR patients were older and had lower preoperative eGFR as compared to SAVR patients. Covariate adjustment using propensity score between the two groups showed that SAVR patients were more likely to have a more severe degree of postoperative AKI as compared to TAVR patients (OR = 4.75; 95% CI: 3.15, 7.17; p <.001). SAVR patients were more likely to require dialysis postoperatively as compared to TAVR patients (OR = 4.55; 95% CI: 1.29, 15.99; p <.018).

Conclusion

In patients with preexisting chronic kidney disease, TAVR was associated with significantly less AKI as compared to SAVR.

Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with other approaches to treat aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) is an alternative treatment for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or at increased perioperative risk. Due to continually emerging evidence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing benefits and harms of TAVI, SAVR, medical therapy, and balloon aortic valvuloplasty.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 6, 2017. We dually screened abstracts and full-text articles for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched observational studies. Two investigators independently rated the risk of bias of included studies and determined the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). If data permitted, we performed meta-analyses using random- and fixed-effects models.

RESULTS

Out of 7755 citations, we included six RCTs (5862 patients) and 13 observational studies (6376 patients). In meta-analyses, patients treated with SAVR or TAVI had similar risks for mortality at 30 days (relative risk [RR] 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82 to 1.33) and 1 year (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13). TAVI had significantly lower risks for major bleeding but increased risks for major vascular complications, moderate or severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation, and new pacemaker implantation compared to SAVR. Comparing TAVI to medical therapy, mortality did not differ at 30 days but was significantly reduced at 1 year (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Given similar mortality risks but different patterns of adverse events, the choice between TAVI and SAVR remains an individual one.

Transcatheter, sutureless and conventional aortic-valve replacement: a network meta-analysis of 16,432 patients

Background

Minimally invasive surgical techniques pose alternatives to conventional surgery for the treatment of aortic stenosis (AS). We present a Bayesian network analysis comparing Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 clinical outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), sutureless (SL-AVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR).

Methods

Electronic searches of databases were conducted and seven two-arm randomized-controlled trials and 25 propensity-score-matched studies comparing clinical outcomes of TAVI, SL-AVR and CAVR for treatment of AS were identified. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo modelling was used to analyze clinical outcomes.

Results

The analysis included 16,432 patients who underwent TAVI [7,056], SL-AVR [1,238] or CAVR [8,138]. Compared to CAVR, TAVI and SL-AVR were associated with reduced postoperative major bleeding of 59% (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.28-0.59) and 44% (OR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.30-0.99) respectively. TAVI had a 41% reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (OR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.40-0.86) and SL-AVR had a 40% reduction in postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42-0.86). Compared to TAVI, CAVR and SL-AVR had a reduction in moderate/severe paravalvular regurgitation of 89% (OR 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.16) and 92% (OR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.17). CAVR had a 67% decreased postoperative permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation compared to TAVI (OR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.45) and a 63% reduction compared to SL-AVR (OR 0.37, 95% CI: 0.22-0.61). There were no differences in 30-day mortality or postoperative stroke between the groups.

Conclusions

In selected patients, minimally invasive surgical interventions including TAVI and SL-AVR for severe AS are viable alternatives to conventional surgery. However, TAVI is associated with increased paravalvular regurgitation, whereas TAVI and SL-AVR are associated with increased conduction disturbances compared to CAVR.

Meta-Analysis Comparing the Frequency of Stroke After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Stroke is one of the most feared complications of aortic valve replacement. Although the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improved substantially over time, concerns remained about a potentially higher incidence of stroke with TAVI compared with surgical replacement (SAVR). However, comparative data are sparse. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the incidence of stroke among patients undergoing TAVI versus SAVR. Of the 5067 studies screened, 28 eligible studies (22 propensity-score matched studies and 6 randomized trials) were analyzed. Primary endpoints were 30-day stroke and disabling stroke. Secondary endpoints were 1-year stroke and disabling stroke. A total of 23,587 patients were included, of whom 47.27% underwent TAVI and 52.72% underwent SAVR. For each endpoint, pooled estimates of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. The pooled estimates for stroke (2.7% vs 3.1%, OR 0.86; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.02; p=0.08) and disabling stroke (2.5% vs 2.9%, OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.57 to 1.62; p=0.89) were comparable following TAVI versus SAVR at 30 days. Similarly, the pooled estimates for stroke (5.0% vs 4.6%, OR 1.01; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28; p=0.96) and disabling stroke (4.1% vs 4.5%, OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.92 to 1.39; p=0.71) were similar at 1 year. A sensitivity analysis including only RCTs yielded similar results. Our meta-analysis documents comparable rates of strokes and disabling strokes following TAVI or SAVR both at 30 days and 1 year.

Access Sites for TAVI: Patient Selection Criteria, Technical Aspects, and Outcomes

During the last ten years, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become a reliable and valid alternative treatment for elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis requiring valve replacement and being at high or intermediate surgical risk. While common femoral arteries are the access site of choice in the vast majority of TAVI patients, in up to 15–20% of TAVI candidates this route might be precluded due to the presence of diffuse atherosclerotic disease, tortuosity or small vessel diameter. Therefore, in order to achieve an antegrade or retrograde implant, several alterative access routes have been described, namely trans-axillary, trans-aortic, trans-apical, trans-carotid, trans-septal, and trans-caval. The aim of this paper is to give a concise overview on vascular access sites for TAVI, with a particular focus on patient's selection criteria, imaging, technical aspects, and clinical outcome.

Transfemoral, transapical and transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of early and mid-term deaths

Clinical outcomes of transfemoral-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TF-TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transapical (TA)-TAVI are limited to a few randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Because previous meta-analyses only included a limited number of adjusted studies or several non-adjusted studies, our goal was to compare and summarize the outcomes of TF-TAVI vs SAVR and TF-TAVI vs TA-TAVI exclusively with the RCT and propensity-matched cohort studies with direct and adjusted indirect comparisons to reach more precise conclusions. We hypothesized that TF-TAVI would offer surgical candidates a better outcome compared with SAVR and TA-TAVI because of its potential for fewer myocardial injuries. A literature search was conducted through PUBMED and EMBASE through June 2016. Only RCTs and propensity-matched cohort studies were included. A direct meta-analysis of TF-TAVI vs SAVR, TA-TAVI vs SAVR and TF-TAVI vs TA-TAVI was conducted. Then, the effect size of an indirect meta-analysis was calculated from the direct meta-analysis. The effect sizes of direct and indirect meta-analyses were then combined. A random-effects model was used to calculate the hazards ratio and the odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals. Early (in-hospital or 30 days) and mid-term (≥1 year) all-cause mortality rates were assessed. Our search resulted in 4 RCTs (n = 2319) and 14 propensity-matched cohort (n = 7217) studies with 9536 patients of whom 3471, 1769 and 4296 received TF, TA and SAVR, respectively. Direct meta-analyses and combined direct and indirect meta-analyses of early and mid-term deaths with TF-TAVI and SAVR were similar. Early deaths with TF-TAVI vs TA-TAVI were comparable in direct meta-analyses (odds ratio 0.64, P = 0.35) and direct and indirect meta-analyses combined (odds ratio 0.73, P = 0.24). Mid-term deaths with TF-TAVI vs TA-TAVI were increased (hazard ratio 0.83, P = 0.07) in a direct meta-analysis and became significant after addition of the indirect meta-analysis (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.92, P = 0.003). In conclusion, TF-TAVI was associated with similar early and mid-term deaths compared with SAVR. The number of early deaths was not significantly different between TF-TAVI and TA-TAVI, whereas there were fewer mid-term deaths with TF-TAVI than with TA-TAVI.

Comparison of late mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: Insights from a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has shown non-inferior late mortality in severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients in intermediate to inoperable risk for surgery compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Late outcome of TAVI compared to SAVR is crucial as the number of TAVI continues to increase over the last few years.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PUBMED and EMBASE were conducted. Inclusion criteria were that [1] study design was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or a propensity-score matched (PSM) study: [2] outcomes included >2-year all-cause mortality in both TAVI and SAVR. The random-effects model was utilized to calculate an overall effect size of TAVI compared to SAVR in all-cause mortality. Publication bias was assessed quantitatively with Egger's test.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies with 6503 (3292 TAVI and 3211 SAVR, respectively) were included in the meta-analysis. There was no difference in late all-cause mortality between TAVI and SAVR (HR 1.17, 95%CI 0.98-1.41, p=0.08, I²=61%). The sub-group analysis of all-cause mortality of RCT (HR 0.93 95%CI 0.78-1.10, p=0.38, I²=40%) and PSM studies (HR 1.44 95%CI 1.15-1.80, p=0.02, I²=35%) differed significantly (p for subgroup differences=0.002). Meta-regression implicated that increased age and co-existing CAD may be associated with more advantageous effects of TAVI relative to SAVR on reducing late mortality. There was no evidence of significant publication bias (p=0.19 for Egger's test).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI conferred similar late all-cause mortality compared to SAVR in a meta-analysis of RCT but had worse outcomes in a meta-analysis of PSM.

Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of perioperative mortality after sutureless or rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation

OBJECTIVES

To determine which procedure, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a sutureless or rapid-deployment prosthesis (SL-AVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), achieves better perioperative survival for severe aortic stenosis (AS), we conducted direct-comparison meta-analyses (DC-MAs) and an adjusted indirect-comparison meta-analysis (IDC-MA).

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2016. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies. We performed a DC-MA-[A] of SL-AVR versus TAVI, a DC-MA-[B] of SL-AVR versus conventional AVR (C-AVR), and a DC-MA-[C] TAVI versus C-AVR. Then, we computed a IDC-MA-[A'] of TAVI versus SL-AVR from the results of the DC-MA-[B] and the DC-MA-[C].

RESULTS

We identified 6 RCTs and 30 PSM studies enrolling a total of 15,887 patients. The 3 DC-MAs demonstrated significantly lower perioperative (30-day or in-hospital) all-cause mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28 to 0.80; p=0.005) and no significant differences between SL-AVR and C-AVR (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.94; p=0.81) and between TAVI and C-AVR (1.07; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.27; p=0.45). The computed IDC-MA-[A'] indicated no significant difference in mortality between SL-AVR and TAVI (1.01; 95% CI, 0.54 to 1.86). Combining the results of the DC-MA-[A] and IDC-MA [A'] showed significantly lower mortality after SL-AVR than after TAVI (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.97; p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with severe AS, SL-AVR may achieve better perioperative survival than TAVI.

Utilization and 1-Year Mortality for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in New York Patients With Aortic Stenosis: 2011 to 2012

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) relative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and to examine relative 1-year TAVR and SAVR outcomes in 2011 to 2012 in a population-based setting.

BACKGROUND

TAVR has become a popular option for patients with severe aortic stenosis, particularly for higher-risk patients.

METHODS

New York's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System was used to identify TAVR and SAVR volumes and to propensity match TAVR and SAVR patients using numerous patient risk factors contained in the registry to compare 1-year mortality rates. Mortality rates were also compared for different levels of patient risk.

RESULTS

The total number of aortic valve replacement patients increased from 2,291 in 2011 to 2,899 in 2012, an increase of 27%. The volume of SAVR patients increased by 7.1% from 1,994 to 2,135 and the volume of TAVR patients increased 157% from 297 to 764. The percentage of SAVR patients that were at higher risk (≥3% New York State [NYS] score, equivalent to a Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of about 8%) decreased from 27% to 23%, and the percentage of TAVR patients that were at higher risk decreased from 83% to 76%. There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between TAVR and SAVR patients (15.6% vs. 13.1%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.30 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89 to 1.92]). There were no differences among patients with NYS score <3% (12.5% vs. 10.2%; HR: 1.42 [95% CI: 0.68 to 2.97]) or among patients with NYS score ≥3% (17.1% vs. 14.5%; HR: 1.27 [95% CI: 0.81 to 1.98]).

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR has assumed a much larger share of all aortic valve replacements for severe aortic stenosis, and the average level of pre-procedural risk has decreased substantially. There are no differences between 1-year mortality rates for TAVR and SAVR patients.

Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement through a right minithoracotomy with the balloon-expandable Sapien 3 valve

Transaortic transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed through a right anterolateral minithoracotomy at the second intercostal space is a safe and standardized minimally invasive procedure carrying important clinical advantages for the patient, in particular, no damage to the ventricular apex, preservation of the diseased peripheral arteries and no cross of the aortic arch with the delivery system, meaning a lower risk of calcium dislodgement and neurological complications. Using the third-generation, balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien™ 3 transcatheter heart valve and the Certitude™ delivery system, the transaortic procedure is easily performed under fluoroscopic and echocardiographic guidance. Compared with the transapical procedure, the transaortic technique requires an inversely mounted stent valve and follows the standard guidelines for valve positioning and deployment under rapid pacing. The transaortic approach through a right anterolateral minithoracotomy at the second intercostal space combines the positive aspects of both transfemoral and transapical valve replacements without the risks of either procedure (left ventricular, coronary and peripheral vascular injuries).

Thirty-Day Readmissions After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in New York State

BACKGROUND

Several studies have compared short-term and medium-term mortality rates for patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but no studies have compared short-term readmission rates for the 2 procedures.

METHODS AND RESULTS

New York's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System was used to propensity match 617 TAVI and 1981 SAVR patients using numerous patient risk factors contained in the registry. The 389 propensity-matched pairs were then used to analyze differences in readmission rates between the 2 groups. TAVI and SAVR readmission rates were also compared for patients with a history of congestive heart failure and for patients aged ≥80. Also, reasons for readmission for TAVI and SAVR patients were examined and compared. Readmission rates were not statistically different for all propensity-matched TAVI and SAVR patients (respective rates, 18.8% and 19.3%; P=0.86). After further adjustment using a logistic regression model, there was still no significant difference (adjusted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [0.68-1.39]). For patients aged ≥80, the 30-day readmission rates were 19.9% and 22.0% (P=0.59), and when further adjusted using the logistic regression model, adjusted odds ratio=0.89 (0.55-1.45). For patients with a history of congestive heart failure, the respective rates were 22.8% and 20.4% (P=0.56), and with further adjustment, adjusted odds ratio became 1.15 (0.72-1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

There are no statistically significant differences between TAVI and SAVR patients in short-term readmission rates.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: a Kidney's Perspective

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has now emerged as a viable treatment option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who are not suitable candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Despite encouraging published outcomes, acute kidney injury (AKI) is common and lowers the survival of patients after TAVR. The pathogenesis of AKI after TAVR is multifactorial including TAVR specific factors such as the use of contrast agents, hypotension during rapid pacing, and embolization; preventive measures may include pre-procedural hydration, limitation of contrast dye exposure, and avoidance of intraprocedural hypotension. In recent years, the number of TAVR performed worldwide has been increasing, as well as published data on renal perspectives of TAVR including AKI, chronic kidney disease, end-stage kidney disease, and kidney transplantation. This review aims to present the current literature on the nephrology aspects of TAVR, ultimately to improve the patients' quality of care and outcomes.

AKI after Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis who are at high risk of perioperative mortality. Previous studies showed increased risk of postoperative AKI with TAVR, but it is unclear whether differences in patient risk profiles confounded the results. To conduct a propensity-matched study, we identified all adult patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis at Mayo Clinic Hospital in Rochester, Minnesota from January 1, 2008 to June 30, 2014. Using propensity score matching on the basis of clinical characteristics and preoperative variables, we compared the postoperative incidence of AKI, defined by Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes guidelines, and major adverse kidney events in patients treated with TAVR with that in patients treated with SAVR. Major adverse kidney events were the composite of in-hospital mortality, use of RRT, and persistent elevated serum creatinine ≥200% from baseline at hospital discharge. Of 1563 eligible patients, 195 matched pairs (390 patients) were created. In the matched cohort, baseline characteristics, including Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score and eGFR, were comparable between the two groups. Furthermore, no significant differences existed between the TAVR and SAVR groups in postoperative AKI (24.1% versus 29.7%; P=0.21), major adverse kidney events (2.1% versus 1.5%; P=0.70), or mortality >6 months after surgery (6.0% versus 8.3%; P=0.51). Thus, TAVR did not affect postoperative AKI risk. Because it is less invasive than SAVR, TAVR may be preferred in high-risk individuals.

Acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

METHODS

A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and clinicaltrials.gov from inception through October, 2014. Studies that reported relative risks, ORs, or hazard ratios comparing the AKI risk in patients who underwent TAVR versus those who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement were included. We performed the pre-specified sensitivity analysis including only propensity score-based studies. Mortality risk was evaluated among the studies that reported AKI outcome. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a random-effect, generic inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1,852 patients and 14 cohort studies with 3,113 patients were analyzed to assess the AKI risk in patients undergoing TAVR. The pooled RRs of AKI in patients undergoing TAVR were 0.65 (95% CI 0.36-1.15, I(2) = 75%) in the analysis of RCTs and propensity score-based studies and 0.76 (95% CI 0.44-1.34, I(2) = 79%) in the analysis of observational studies. Sensitivity analysis in RCTs and propensity score-based studies using a standard AKI definition demonstrated a significant association between TAVR and lower AKI risk (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.25-0.50, I(2) = 0%). Our meta-analyses of RCTs and propensity score-based studies did not find associations between TAVR and reduced risks of severe AKI requiring dialysis (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38-1.79, I(2) = 63%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis demonstrates an association between TAVR and lower AKI risk.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised trials

Introduction

Many patients deemed inoperable for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) have been treated successfully by transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR). This meta-analysis is designed to evaluate the performance of TAVR in comparison with SAVR.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Current Contents Connect, the Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Science Direct and Web of Science. Original data were abstracted from each study and used to calculate a pooled OR and 95% CI.

Results

Among three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), differences between the two cohorts were not statistically significant for the frequency of stroke (OR=1.94, 95% CI=0.813 to 4.633), incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), (OR=0.765, 95% CI=0.05 to 11.76) 30-day mortality rate, 1-year mortality rate (0.82, 95% CI=0.62 to 1.09) and acute kidney injury incidence rate. The non-RCTs demonstrated that the TAVR group had an amplified frequency aortic regurgitation at discharge (OR=5.465, 95% CI=3.441 to 8.680). While differences between the two cohorts were not statistically significant for the incidence of MI (OR=0.697, 95% CI=0.22 to 2.21), stroke (OR=0.575, 95% CI=0.263 to 1.259), acute renal failure requiring haemodialysis (OR=0.943, 95% CI=0.276 to 3.222), 30-day mortality (OR=0.869, 95% CI=0.621 to 1.216) and the need for a pacemaker (OR=1.832, 95% CI=0.869 to 3.862), a lower incidence of patients needing transfusion (OR=0.349, 95% CI=0.121 to 1.005) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (OR=0.296, 95% CI=0.124 to 0.706) was seen in the TAVR group.

Conclusions

Randomised and observational evidence adjusted on the baseline patient’s characteristics finds a similar risk for 30 days mortality, 1-year mortality, stroke, MI and acute kidney injury in TAVR and SAVR.

Advanced age and the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is common in the elderly. Although surgical replacement of the valve has been the gold standard of management, many patients have been excluded from surgery because they were very old, frail, or had co-morbidities that increased operative risks. In the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a new treatment option suitable for these patients. This article reviews the available literature on the role of TAVI in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis. Published studies showed that elderly individuals who underwent TAVI experienced better in-hospital recovery, and similar short and mid-term mortality compared to those underwent surgical treatment of AS. However, long-term outcomes of TAVI in elderly patients are still unknown. The available data in the literature on the effect of advanced age on clinical outcomes of TAVI are limited, but the data that are available suggest that TAVI is a beneficial and tolerable procedure in very old patients. Some of the expected complications after TAVI are reported more in the oldest patients such as vascular injures. Other complications were comparable in TAVI patients regardless of their age group. However, very old patients may need closer monitoring to avoid further morbidities and mortality.

A meta-analysis of mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events following transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare postprocedural mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis. Seventeen studies (n = 4,659) comparing TAVI (n = 2,267) and SAVR (n = 2,392) were included. End points were baseline logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and major bleeding events. Mean differences or risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were computed, and p values <0.05 were considered significant. The population was matched for risk between the 2 groups on the basis of logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score for all outcomes except 30-day all-cause mortality, which had a high-risk population in the TAVI group (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference found in all-cause mortality at 30 days (p = 0.97) and at an average of 85 weeks (p = 0.07). There was no significant difference in cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.54) as well as the incidence of myocardial infarction (p = 0.59), stroke (p = 0.36), and transient ischemic attack (p = 0.85) at averages of 86, 72, 66, and 89 weeks, respectively. Compared with patients who underwent TAVI, those who underwent SAVR had a significantly higher frequency of major bleeding events (p <0.0001) at mean follow-up of 66 weeks. In conclusion, TAVI has similar cardiovascular and all-cause mortality to SAVR at early and long-term follow-up. TAVI is superior to SAVR for major bleeding complications and noninferior to SAVR for postprocedural myocardial infarctions and cerebrovascular events. TAVI is a safe alternative to SAVR in selected high-risk elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an acceptable treatment modality for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are deemed inoperable by conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, the role of TAVI in patients who are potential surgical candidates remains controversial.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using five electronic databases, identifying all relevant studies with comparative data on TAVI versus AVR. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A number of periprocedural outcomes were also assessed according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium endpoint definitions.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were quantitatively assessed and included for meta-analysis, including two randomized controlled trials and eleven observational studies. Results indicated no significant differences between TAVI and AVR in terms of all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or acute renal failure. A subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials identified a higher combined incidence of stroke or transient ischemic attacks in the TAVI group compared to the AVR group. TAVI was also found to be associated with a significantly higher incidence of vascular complications, permanent pacemaker requirement and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. However, patients who underwent AVR were more likely to experience major bleeding. Both treatment modalities appeared to effectively reduce the transvalvular mean pressure gradient.

CONCLUSIONS

The available data on TAVI versus AVR for patients at a higher surgical risk showed that major adverse outcomes such as mortality and stroke appeared to be similar between the two treatment modalities. Evidence on the outcomes of TAVI compared with AVR in the current literature is limited by inconsistent patient selection criteria, heterogeneous definitions of clinical endpoints and relatively short follow-up periods. The indications for TAVI should therefore be limited to inoperable surgical candidates until long-term data become available.

A meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement

BACKGROUND

Our preliminary meta-analysis suggests that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) may not reduce the 30-day mortality rate over surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). We performed an updated formal meta-analysis of TAVI vs AVR for reduction not only of early but also of late all-cause mortality in AS.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through October 2012. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials or adjusted observational comparative studies of TAVI vs AVR enrolling individuals with AS and reporting early (30-day or in-hospital) or late all-cause mortality, or both, as an outcome. Odds ratios or hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (adjusted odds ratios or hazard ratios in case of observational studies) were abstracted from each study.

RESULTS

We identified two randomized trials and 15 adjusted observational studies enrolling 4,873 patients with severe AS. Pooled analysis suggested no significant difference in early (odds ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.70 to 1.19) and midterm (3-month to 3-year) total mortality (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.17) among patients assigned to TAVI vs AVR. Exclusion of any single study from the analysis did not substantively alter the overall result of our analysis. No evidence of significant publication bias was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis of data of approximately 5,000 patients from 17 studies showed that TAVI is likely ineffective in reducing early and midterm all-cause mortality vs AVR in high-risk patients with AS.