Department of Cardiovascular Disease, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2019 Sep;23(18):8018-8027. doi: 10.26355/eurrev_201909_19018.
The aim of the meta-analysis was to assess post-procedural outcome of the new generation of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices, focusing on the transfemoral and balloon-expandable SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences Inc., Irvine, CA, USA), the self-expanding CoreValveTM Evolut series R and PRO (R/PRO)TM (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN, USA) and ACURATE neoTM transcatheter aortic valve (Symetis SA, a Boston Scientific company, Ecublens, Switzerland).
All observational studies were retrieved through PubMed computerized database from January 2014 until June 30th, 2019. The risk difference (RD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention under comparison. The primary end point was 30-day mortality. Safety end points included: (i) stroke, (ii) moderate/severe paravalvular leak, and (iii) the need for new permanent pacemaker implantation.
Meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences as regards to either 30-day mortality or stroke for all the groups of prostheses under comparison. ACURATE neo was associated with significantly less new permanent pacemaker implantation compared to SAPIEN 3 (RD: -0.06; 95% CI -0.08 to -0.03; p<0.0001; I2=0%) or to EVOLUT R/PRO (RD: -0.06; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.02; p=0.0009; I2=0%). A significant reduction of new permanent pacemaker need was observed in the group of patients implanted with SAPIEN 3 compared to EVOLUT R/PRO (RD: -0.07; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.04; p<0.00001; I2=7%). The occurrence of moderate/severe leak was significantly increased in the group of patients implanted with ACURATE neo vs. SAPIEN 3 (RD: 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.05; p<0.00001; I2=0%). No significant differences were found between ACURATE neo vs. EVOLUT R/PRO (RD: -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.02; p=0.69; I2=0%) and between SAPIEN 3 vs. EVOLUT R/PRO (RD: -0.01; 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; p=0.28; I2=73%).
The results of the meta-analysis show that: (1) ACURATE neo was associated with significantly less new permanent pacemaker implantation than SAPIEN 3 and EVOLUT R/PRO; (2) SAPIEN 3 had significantly lower occurrence of moderate/severe valvular leak than ACURATE neo.
本荟萃分析旨在评估新一代经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVI)器械的术后结果,重点关注经股动脉和球囊扩张的 SAPIEN 3(爱德华兹生命科学公司,加利福尼亚州欧文市)、自扩张 CoreValveTM Evolut 系列 R 和 PRO(R/PRO)TM(美敦力公司,明尼苏达州明尼阿波利斯市)和 ACURATE neoTM 经导管主动脉瓣(Symetis SA,波士顿科学公司,瑞士埃克朗)。
通过计算机检索 PubMed 数据库,从 2014 年 1 月至 2019 年 6 月 30 日,纳入所有观察性研究。使用风险差异(RD)和 95%置信区间(CI)评估比较干预的效果。主要终点为 30 天死亡率。安全性终点包括:(i)卒中和(ii)中重度瓣周漏和(iii)需要植入新的永久性起搏器。
荟萃分析显示,在比较的所有假体组中,30 天死亡率或卒中均无显著差异。与 SAPIEN 3 相比,ACURATE neo 与显著较少的新永久性起搏器植入相关(RD:-0.06;95%CI-0.08 至-0.03;p<0.0001;I2=0%)或与 EVOLUT R/PRO 相比(RD:-0.06;95%CI-0.09 至-0.02;p=0.0009;I2=0%)。与 EVOLUT R/PRO 相比,SAPIEN 3 组患者新永久性起搏器的需求明显减少(RD:-0.07;95%CI-0.09 至-0.04;p<0.00001;I2=7%)。与 SAPIEN 3 相比,ACURATE neo 组患者中中度/重度漏的发生率明显增加(RD:0.04;95%CI 0.02 至 0.05;p<0.00001;I2=0%)。与 EVOLUT R/PRO 相比,ACURATE neo 与 EVOLUT R/PRO 之间(RD:-0.01;95%CI-0.04 至 0.02;p=0.69;I2=0%)和 SAPIEN 3 与 EVOLUT R/PRO 之间(RD:-0.01;95%CI-0.04 至 0.01;p=0.28;I2=73%)无显著差异。
荟萃分析结果表明:(1)与 SAPIEN 3 和 EVOLUT R/PRO 相比,ACURATE neo 与显著较少的新永久性起搏器植入相关;(2)与 ACURATE neo 相比,SAPIEN 3 中度/重度瓣周漏的发生率较低。