Department of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Department of Cardiovascular Disease, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.
Cardiol J. 2023;30(4):595-605. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2021.0114. Epub 2021 Oct 8.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the impact of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) at low surgical risk.
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (Obs) published from January 2014 until March 31st, 2020 were retrieved through the PubMed computerized database and at the site https://www.
com. The relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the effect of the intervention under comparison. The primary endpoints were all-cause 30-day mortality and 1-year mortality. The 30-day safety endpoints were: stroke, acute kidney injury stage 2 or 3, major bleeding, moderate/severe paravalvular leak, need for new permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation.
After detailed review 9 studies, related to 4 RCTs and 5 Obs, were selected. The overall analysis of RCTs plus Obs showed a significantly lower 30-day mortality for TAVI (RR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.45-0.68, p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%). However, an increased risk of new PM implantation (RR = 2.87; 95% CI 2.01-3.67, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and of paravalvular leak (RR = 7.28; 95% CI 3.83-13.81, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) was observed in TAVI compared to SAVR. On the contrary, a lower incidence of major bleeding (RR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.27-0.54, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%) and of acute kidney injury was observed (RR = 0.33; 95% CI 0.19-0.56, p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%) in TAVI.
TAVI and SVAR in the treatment of AS in the patients at low surgical risk are not superimposable. In particular, if 30-day and 1-year mortality, major bleeding and acute kidney injury were significantly lower for TAVI, the need of new PM implantation and paravalvular leak were significantly lower in SAVR. Consequently, we suggest the need of more trials to evaluate the effectiveness of TAVI as routine therapeutic procedure in the treatment of patients with low surgical risk AS.
本荟萃分析旨在比较经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)与外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)在低手术风险的严重主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)患者中的疗效。
检索了 2014 年 1 月至 2020 年 3 月 31 日通过 PubMed 计算机数据库和网站 https://www.clinicaltrials.gov 发表的所有随机对照试验(RCT)和观察性研究(Obs)。采用相对危险度(RR)和 95%置信区间(CI)评估比较干预措施的效果。主要终点为全因 30 天死亡率和 1 年死亡率。30 天安全性终点包括:卒中、急性肾损伤 2 或 3 期、大出血、中重度瓣周漏、需要新植入永久性起搏器(PM)。
经过详细审查,选择了 9 项研究,其中包括 4 项 RCT 和 5 项 Obs。RCT 加 Obs 的综合分析显示,TAVI 的 30 天死亡率显著降低(RR=0.55;95%CI 0.45-0.68,p<0.00001;I2=0%)。然而,TAVI 组新植入 PM 的风险增加(RR=2.87;95%CI 2.01-3.67,p<0.00001,I2=0%)和瓣周漏的风险增加(RR=7.28;95%CI 3.83-13.81,p<0.00001,I2=0%)。相比之下,TAVI 组的大出血(RR=0.38;95%CI 0.27-0.54,p<0.00001,I2=0%)和急性肾损伤(RR=0.33;95%CI 0.19-0.56,p<0.0001,I2=0%)的发生率较低。
TAVI 和 SAVR 治疗低手术风险的 AS 并不相同。具体来说,如果 TAVI 的 30 天和 1 年死亡率、大出血和急性肾损伤显著降低,SAVR 的新植入 PM 和瓣周漏的需求显著降低。因此,我们建议需要更多的试验来评估 TAVI 作为低手术风险 AS 常规治疗方法的有效性。