CUNY School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
J Card Surg. 2021 Jul;36(7):2486-2495. doi: 10.1111/jocs.15546. Epub 2021 Apr 2.
BACKGROUND/AIM: With the growing contemporary use of bioprosthetic valves, whose limited long-term durability has been well-documented, an increase in the need for reintervention is expected. We perform a meta-analysis to compare the current standard of care, redo surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo SAVR) with the less invasive alternative, valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) for treating structural valve deterioration.
After a comprehensive literature search, studies comparing ViV TAVR to Redo SAVR were pooled to perform a pairwise meta-analysis using the random-effects model. Primary outcomes were 30-day and follow-up mortality.
A total of nine studies including 9127 patients were included. ViV TAVR patients were significantly older (mean difference [MD], 5.82; p = .0002) and more frequently had hypercholesterolemia (59.7 vs. 60.0%; p = .0006), coronary artery disease (16.1 vs. 16.1%; p = .04), periphery artery disease (15.4 vs. 5.7%; p = .004), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29.3 vs. 26.2%; p = .04), renal failure (30.2 vs. 24.0%; p = .009), and >1 previous cardiac surgery (23.6 vs. 15.9%; p = .004). Despite this, ViV TAVR was associated with decreased 30-day mortality (OR, 0.56; p < .0001). Conversely, Redo SAVR had lower 30-day paravalvular leak (OR, 6.82; p = .04), severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (OR, 3.77; p < .0001), and postoperative aortic valve gradients (MD, 5.37; p < .0001). There was no difference in follow-up mortality (HR, 1.02; p = .86).
Despite having patients with an increased baseline risk, ViV TAVR was associated with lower 30-day mortality, while Redo SAVR had lower paravalvular leak, severe patient-prosthesis mismatch, and postoperative gradients. Although ViV TAVR remains a feasible treatment option in high-risk patients, randomized trials are necessary to elucidate its efficacy over Redo SAVR.
背景/目的:随着生物假体瓣膜的广泛应用,其长期耐用性有限已得到充分证实,预计需要再次介入的情况会增加。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,比较了当前的标准治疗方法,即再次主动脉瓣置换术(redo SAVR)与经导管瓣膜内置换术(ViV TAVR),以治疗结构性瓣膜恶化。
经过全面的文献检索,将比较 ViV TAVR 与 redo SAVR 的研究进行汇总,使用随机效应模型进行成对荟萃分析。主要结局为 30 天和随访死亡率。
共纳入 9 项研究,共纳入 9127 例患者。ViV TAVR 患者年龄明显较大(平均差异 [MD],5.82;p=0.0002),且更常伴有高胆固醇血症(59.7%比 60.0%;p=0.0006)、冠状动脉疾病(16.1%比 16.1%;p=0.04)、外周动脉疾病(15.4%比 5.7%;p=0.004)、慢性阻塞性肺疾病(29.3%比 26.2%;p=0.04)、肾功能衰竭(30.2%比 24.0%;p=0.009)和>1 次心脏手术史(23.6%比 15.9%;p=0.004)。尽管如此,ViV TAVR 与 30 天死亡率降低相关(OR,0.56;p<0.0001)。相反,redo SAVR 与 30 天瓣周漏(OR,6.82;p=0.04)、严重的患者-假体不匹配(OR,3.77;p<0.0001)和术后主动脉瓣梯度(MD,5.37;p<0.0001)较低相关。随访死亡率无差异(HR,1.02;p=0.86)。
尽管 ViV TAVR 患者的基线风险较高,但与 30 天死亡率降低相关,而 redo SAVR 与瓣周漏、严重的患者-假体不匹配和术后梯度较低相关。尽管 ViV TAVR 仍然是高危患者的可行治疗选择,但需要随机试验来阐明其与 redo SAVR 的疗效。