• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

低风险患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)与外科AVR的比较:一项全面的荟萃分析和系统评价

Comparing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) With Surgical AVR in Lower Risk Patients: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.

作者信息

Khan Muhammad Shayan, Mir Tanveer, Ullah Waqas, Ali Zain, Idris Owais, Khan Ghazal, Rashid Mamoon Ur, Mehmood Mobasser, Ali Syed Sohail

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Mercy St Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, OH 43608, USA.

Department of Internal Medicine, Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48201, USA.

出版信息

Cardiol Res. 2020 Jun;11(3):168-178. doi: 10.14740/cr1046. Epub 2020 May 3.

DOI:10.14740/cr1046
PMID:32494326
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7239597/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Transcutaneous aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a novel percutaneous procedure for severe aortic stenosis and has been recently approved by Food and Drug Administration in lower risk patients. We performed the first ever meta-analysis and literature review of clinical trials comparing both 30-day and 1-year outcomes in lower risk patients undergoing TAVR vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR, having Society of Thoracic Surgeons score < 4% or equivalent).

METHODS

Using predefined selection criteria as above, 68 articles were identified. Seven eligible articles were selected after extensive review. Primary effect outcomes were 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality using risk ratio (RR) with significant P value of < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 4,859 subjects were included. Risk of 30-day all-cause mortality was 40.1% less in TAVR group, RR 0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38 - 0.92, P = 0.02) with no significant heterogeneity. Six studies except Schymik et al also reported 1-year risk. This was, however, not statistically significant with a 21% decrease in the TAVR group, RR 0.79 (95% CI: 0.57 - 1.09, P = 0.15). Six studies reported 30-day risk of secondary outcomes. The risk of 30-day stroke was 36% less in TAVR group, although this was not statistically significant, RR 0.64 (95% CI: 0.38 - 1.9, P = 0.10). The risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) stage 2 and above was 56% less in post-TAVR patients, RR 0.43 (95% CI: 0.35 - 0.54, P < 0.001) with no heterogeneity. For vascular complications, RR was high in TAVR group 4.62 (95% CI: 1.42-15.18, P = 0.01). Significant heterogeneity was demonstrated though (I = 81). The risks for permanent pacemaker (PPM) were also higher in the TAVR group, RR 3.30 (95% CI: 2.04 - 5.33, P < 0.001) and significant heterogeneity was observed. After removing Thyregod et al and Partner 3 trial from the analysis, heterogeneity was removed, but the RR was still high 3.21 (95% CI: 2.54 - 4.068, P < 0.001). Post-operative incidence of endocarditis among TAVR patients was low but not statistically significant. The 30-day risk for infective endocarditis was RR 0.67 (95% CI: 0.13 - 3.48, P = 0.63). The 1-year risk was similarly low but not significant, RR 0.73 (95% CI: 0.28 - 1.92, P = 0.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Among low risk patients, TAVR was found to be superior in short-term all-cause mortality and 1-year stroke, a result that was statistically significant for TAVR and close to significance for stroke. TAVR patients were also less likely to have post-operative bleeding and AKI stage 2 and beyond. Post-operative incidence of endocarditis among TAVR patients was low but not statistically significant. However, the rates of PPM and vascular complications are higher in TAVR patients. The results of TAVR in low risk population are thus extremely encouraging. However, the issue of long-term valve durability in this group needs further studies. Also, caution needs to be exercised while extending the indications to extremely young patients due to lack of enough studies.

摘要

背景

经皮主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)是一种用于严重主动脉瓣狭窄的新型经皮手术,最近已被美国食品药品监督管理局批准用于低风险患者。我们首次对比较接受TAVR与外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR,胸外科医师学会评分<4%或相当)的低风险患者30天和1年结局的临床试验进行了荟萃分析和文献综述。

方法

使用上述预定义的选择标准,确定了68篇文章。经过广泛审查后,选择了7篇符合条件的文章。主要效应结局是使用风险比(RR)的30天和1年全因死亡率,P值<0.05具有显著性。

结果

共纳入4859名受试者。TAVR组30天全因死亡风险降低40.1%,RR为0.59(95%置信区间(CI):0.38 - 0.92,P = 0.02),无显著异质性。除Schymik等人的研究外,六项研究也报告了1年风险。然而,这在统计学上不显著,TAVR组降低了21%,RR为0.79(95%CI:0.57 - 1.09,P = 0.15)。六项研究报告了30天次要结局的风险。TAVR组30天中风风险降低36%,尽管这在统计学上不显著,RR为0.64(95%CI:0.38 - 1.9,P = 0.10)。TAVR术后2期及以上急性肾损伤(AKI)风险降低56%,RR为0.43(95%CI:0.35 - 0.54,P < 0.001),无异质性。对于血管并发症,TAVR组RR较高,为4.62(95%CI:1.42 - 15.18,P = 0.01)。不过显示出显著异质性(I = 81)。TAVR组永久起搏器(PPM)风险也较高,RR为3.30(95%CI:2.04 - 5.33,P < 0.001),观察到显著异质性。从分析中剔除Thyregod等人的研究和Partner 3试验后,异质性消除,但RR仍然较高,为3.21(95%CI:2.54 - 4.068,P < 0.001)。TAVR患者术后感染性心内膜炎发生率较低,但无统计学意义。30天感染性心内膜炎风险RR为0.67(95%CI:0.13 - 3.48,P = 0.63)。1年风险同样较低但不显著,RR为0.73(95%CI:0.28 - 1.92,P = 0.53)。

结论

在低风险患者中,发现TAVR在短期全因死亡率和1年中风方面更具优势,这一结果对TAVR具有统计学意义,对中风接近显著意义。TAVR患者术后出血和2期及以上AKI的可能性也较小。TAVR患者术后感染性心内膜炎发生率较低但无统计学意义。然而,TAVR患者的PPM和血管并发症发生率较高。因此,TAVR在低风险人群中的结果非常令人鼓舞。然而,该组中瓣膜长期耐久性问题需要进一步研究。此外,由于缺乏足够的研究,在将适应症扩展到极年轻患者时需要谨慎。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/0aa1fd22493a/cr-11-168-g013.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/b68a91914a47/cr-11-168-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/701684dcf407/cr-11-168-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/b695202d4ac8/cr-11-168-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/f9cb592802c2/cr-11-168-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/8924f4822785/cr-11-168-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/481282da2073/cr-11-168-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/5de952fc48f7/cr-11-168-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/7fecaa0b2ef9/cr-11-168-g008.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/10fc73dd7d1f/cr-11-168-g009.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/3a25d88ec99b/cr-11-168-g010.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/1d9fca1c8bb6/cr-11-168-g011.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/fb98a5979f78/cr-11-168-g012.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/0aa1fd22493a/cr-11-168-g013.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/b68a91914a47/cr-11-168-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/701684dcf407/cr-11-168-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/b695202d4ac8/cr-11-168-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/f9cb592802c2/cr-11-168-g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/8924f4822785/cr-11-168-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/481282da2073/cr-11-168-g006.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/5de952fc48f7/cr-11-168-g007.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/7fecaa0b2ef9/cr-11-168-g008.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/10fc73dd7d1f/cr-11-168-g009.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/3a25d88ec99b/cr-11-168-g010.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/1d9fca1c8bb6/cr-11-168-g011.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/fb98a5979f78/cr-11-168-g012.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/431d/7239597/0aa1fd22493a/cr-11-168-g013.jpg

相似文献

1
Comparing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (AVR) With Surgical AVR in Lower Risk Patients: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.低风险患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)与外科AVR的比较:一项全面的荟萃分析和系统评价
Cardiol Res. 2020 Jun;11(3):168-178. doi: 10.14740/cr1046. Epub 2020 May 3.
2
Minimally invasive, surgical, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A network meta-analysis.微创、外科手术和经导管主动脉瓣置换术:网状荟萃分析。
J Cardiol. 2024 Mar;83(3):177-183. doi: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2023.08.010. Epub 2023 Aug 21.
3
Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients.经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术在低危患者中的比较。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Sep 24;74(12):1532-1540. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.06.076.
4
Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Lower Surgical Risk Scores: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Early Outcomes.手术风险评分较低患者的经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术:早期结局的系统评价和荟萃分析
Heart Lung Circ. 2017 Aug;26(8):840-845. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2016.12.003. Epub 2017 Jan 24.
5
Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis.低风险患者经导管与外科主动脉瓣置换术治疗重度主动脉瓣狭窄的比较
J Clin Med. 2020 Feb 6;9(2):439. doi: 10.3390/jcm9020439.
6
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Surgical Valve Replacement in Low-Intermediate Surgical Risk Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.低-中度手术风险患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科瓣膜置换术的系统评价和Meta分析
J Invasive Cardiol. 2017 Jun;29(6):209-216.
7
A meta-analysis and meta-regression of long-term outcomes of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis.经导管与外科主动脉瓣置换术治疗重度主动脉瓣狭窄的长期疗效的荟萃分析和荟萃回归分析
Int J Cardiol. 2016 Dec 15;225:234-243. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.10.003. Epub 2016 Oct 6.
8
Minimally Invasive Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: An Updated Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.微创与经导管主动脉瓣置换术:一项更新的荟萃分析与系统评价
Innovations (Phila). 2023 Sep-Oct;18(5):424-434. doi: 10.1177/15569845231197224. Epub 2023 Sep 2.
9
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.低风险患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术:随机对照试验的荟萃分析
Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020 Apr;21(4):461-466. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2019.08.008. Epub 2019 Aug 16.
10

引用本文的文献

1
Comparative Analysis of TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) and Surgical Valve Replacement for Low-Risk Patients.低风险患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)与外科瓣膜置换术的对比分析
Cureus. 2023 Oct 17;15(10):e47234. doi: 10.7759/cureus.47234. eCollection 2023 Oct.

本文引用的文献

1
Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients.经皮球囊扩张式主动脉瓣置换术治疗低危患者。
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 2;380(18):1695-1705. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052. Epub 2019 Mar 16.
2
Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients.经导管主动脉瓣置换术治疗低危患者的自膨式瓣膜。
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 2;380(18):1706-1715. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885. Epub 2019 Mar 16.
3
Durability of Transcatheter and Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Patients at Lower Surgical Risk.
低手术风险患者行经导管和外科生物瓣主动脉瓣膜的耐久性。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Feb 12;73(5):546-553. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.10.083.
4
5-Year Outcomes of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients.高危患者自膨式经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术的 5 年结果。
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 4;72(22):2687-2696. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.08.2146. Epub 2018 Sep 21.
5
One-year outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis and an STS PROM of less than three percent in the SURTAVI trial.SURTAVI 试验中严重主动脉瓣狭窄且 STS PROM 小于 3%的患者的一年结果。
EuroIntervention. 2018 Oct 20;14(8):877-883. doi: 10.4244/EIJ-D-18-00460.
6
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 Adult Cardiac Surgery Risk Models: Part 1-Background, Design Considerations, and Model Development.美国胸外科医师学会 2018 年成人心脏外科学风险模型:第 1 部分——背景、设计考虑因素和模型开发。
Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 May;105(5):1411-1418. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.03.002. Epub 2018 Mar 22.
7
Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients.中危患者的外科手术或经导管主动脉瓣置换术。
N Engl J Med. 2017 Apr 6;376(14):1321-1331. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700456. Epub 2017 Mar 17.
8
Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Lower Surgical Risk Scores: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Early Outcomes.手术风险评分较低患者的经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术:早期结局的系统评价和荟萃分析
Heart Lung Circ. 2017 Aug;26(8):840-845. doi: 10.1016/j.hlc.2016.12.003. Epub 2017 Jan 24.
9
Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate risk patients: A meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies.低至中度风险患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术的比较:一项随机和观察性研究的荟萃分析
Int J Cardiol. 2017 Feb 1;228:723-728. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.11.262. Epub 2016 Nov 12.
10
Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: systematic review and meta-analysis.低中风险重度主动脉瓣狭窄患者经导管与外科主动脉瓣置换术的比较:系统评价与荟萃分析
BMJ. 2016 Sep 28;354:i5130. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5130.