Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2020 Nov 1;31(5):587-594. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivaa179.
Although the standard of care for patients with severe aortic stenosis at low-surgical risk has included surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) since the mid-1960s, many clinical studies have investigated whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) can be a better approach in these patients. As no individual study has been performed to detect the difference in mortality between these 2 treatment strategies, we did a reconstructive individual patient data analysis to study the long-term difference in all-cause mortality.
Randomized clinical trials and propensity score-matched studies that included low-risk adult patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing either SAVR or TAVI and with reports on the mortality rates during the follow-up period were considered. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality of up to 5 years.
In the reconstructed individual patient data analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality between TAVI and SAVR at 5 years of follow-up [30.7% vs 21.4%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.48; P = 0.104]. However, landmark analyses in patients surviving up to 1 year of follow-up showed significantly higher all-cause mortality at 5 years of follow-up (27.5% vs 17.3%, HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.29-2.43; P < 0.001) in patients undergoing TAVI compared to patients undergoing SAVR, respectively.
This reconstructed individual patient data analysis in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis demonstrates that the 5-year all-cause mortality rates are higher after TAVI than after SAVR, driven by markedly higher mortality rates between 1 and 5 years of follow-up in the TAVI group. The present results call for caution in expanding the TAVI procedure as the treatment of choice for the majority of all low-risk patients until long-term data from contemporary randomized clinical trials are available.
自 20 世纪 60 年代中期以来,对于低手术风险的严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者,标准治疗方法包括主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)。然而,许多临床研究已经探讨了经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)在这些患者中的应用是否更为优越。由于没有单独的研究来检测这两种治疗策略在死亡率方面的差异,我们进行了一项重建的个体患者数据分析,以研究全因死亡率的长期差异。
我们纳入了接受 SAVR 或 TAVI 治疗的低危成年严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者的随机临床试验和倾向评分匹配研究,并报告了随访期间的死亡率。主要结局为 5 年内的全因死亡率。
在重建的个体患者数据分析中,5 年随访时 TAVI 与 SAVR 的全因死亡率无统计学差异[30.7%比 21.4%,风险比(HR)为 1.19,95%置信区间(CI)为 0.96-1.48;P=0.104]。然而,在生存至 1 年随访的患者中进行的里程碑分析显示,TAVI 组的 5 年全因死亡率明显高于 SAVR 组(27.5%比 17.3%,HR 为 1.77,95%CI 为 1.29-2.43;P<0.001)。
这项针对低危严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者的重建个体患者数据分析表明,TAVI 后 5 年全因死亡率高于 SAVR,原因是 TAVI 组在 1 至 5 年随访期间的死亡率明显升高。目前的结果表明,在有来自当代随机临床试验的长期数据之前,在大多数低危患者中,TAVI 不应作为首选治疗方法。