Sutureless aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a meta-analysis of comparative matched studies using propensity score matching.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with those undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement using sutureless valves.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was performed.

RESULTS

No randomized controlled trials were identified. Six comparative studies using propensity score matching met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis identified 1462 patients in that 731 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement using sutureless valves (SU) and 731 patients underwent a TAVI. The 30-day or in-hospital mortality was lower in the SU group [odds ratio (OR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36-0.80; P = 0.003]. In the TAVI group, the incidence of postoperative stroke was higher (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17-0.79; P = 0.01). The incidence of moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation was higher in the TAVI group (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.35; P = 0.001). There were neither differences in the postoperative renal failure (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.46-4.58; P = 0.53) nor in the number of patients requiring postoperative pacemaker implantation (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.54-2.08; P = 0.86). Patients in the SU group required more transfusions (OR 4.47, 95% CI 2.77-7.21; P = 0.0001), whereas those in the TAVI group had higher major vascular complications (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.25; P = 0.0001). Intensive care unit stay was not different (mean difference 0.99, 95% CI - 1.22 to 1.40; P = 0.53). One-year survival was better in the SU group (Peto OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.67; P = 0.001), as was the 2-year survival (Peto OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.86; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical aortic valve replacement using sutureless valves is associated with better early and mid-term outcomes compared with TAVI in high- or intermediate-risk patients.