Comparing Clinical Outcomes on Oncology Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Outcomes of patients with active cancer after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with active cancer and aortic stenosis may be under-referred for valve interventions due to concerns over a prohibitive risk. However, whether active cancer impacts outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unknown.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library in December 2023 for studies comparing the post-TAVR outcomes of patients with versus without active cancer. We pooled odds ratios (OR) and adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) applying a random-effects model. Statistical analyses were performed in R version 4.3.2.

RESULTS

We included nine observational studies analyzing 133,906 patients, of whom 9,792 (7.3%) had active cancer. Compared with patients without cancer, patients with active cancer had higher short- (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.15-1.55; p < 0.001) and long-term mortality (OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.80-2.91; p < 0.001) rates, not driven by cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.70-2.40; p = 0.40), and higher major bleeding rates (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.15-2.42; p = 0.008). The higher mortality rate was sustained in an adjusted analysis (aHR 1.77; 95% CI 1.34-2.35; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in cardiac, renal, and cerebral complications at a follow-up ranging from 180 days to 10 years.

CONCLUSION

Patients with active cancer undergoing TAVR had higher non-cardiovascular mortality and bleeding rates, with comparable incidences of other complications. This highlights the need for a shared decision and appropriate patient selection considering cancer type, staging, bleeding risk, and optimal timing for intervention.

Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a VARC-HBR consensus document

The identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are of major importance, but the lack of standardised definitions is challenging for trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Valve Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (VARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organisations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from Europe, the USA, and Asia, with a major focus on TAVI-related bleeding. VARC-HBR is an initiative of the CERC (Cardiovascular European Research Center), aiming to develop a consensus definition of TAVI patients at HBR, based on a systematic review of the available evidence, to provide consistency for future clinical trials, clinical decision-making, and regulatory review. This document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of HBR evaluating the safety and effectiveness of procedures, devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing TAVI..

Midterm outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with active cancer

OBJECTIVES

The clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and concomitant active cancer remain insufficiently explored. This study aimed to assess the midterm outcomes of TAVR in patients diagnosed with AS and active cancer.

METHODS

Data from the OCEAN-TAVI, a prospective Japanese registry of TAVR procedures, was analysed to compare prognoses and clinical outcomes in patients with and without active cancer at the time of TAVR.

RESULTS

Of the 2336 patients who underwent TAVR from October 2013 to July 2017, 89 patients (3.8%) had active cancer, whereas 2247 did not. Among patients with active cancer, 49 had limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2). The prevalent cancers identified before TAVR were colon (21%), prostate (18%), lung (15%), liver (11%) and breast (9%). Although the periprocedural complications and 30-day mortality rates were comparable between the groups, the 3-year survival rate after TAVR was notably lower in patients with active cancer (64.7%) than in those without active cancer (74.7%; p=0.016). Nevertheless, the 3-year survival rate of patients with limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2) did not significantly differ from those without cancer (70.6% vs 74.7%, p=0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

The patients with active cancer exhibited significantly reduced midterm survival rates. However, no distinct disparity existed in those with limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2). Although TAVR is a viable treatment in patients with AS with active cancer, the type and stage of cancer and prognosis should be carefully weighed in the decision-making process.