Formica Francesco, Gallingani Alan, Tuttolomondo Domenico, Hernandez-Vaquero Daniel, D'Alessandro Stefano, Pattuzzi Claudia, Çelik Mevlüt, Singh Gurmeet, Ceccato Evelina, Niccoli Giampaolo, Lorusso Roberto, Nicolini Francesco
Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, 43124 Parma, Italy.
Cardiac Surgery Clinic, University Hospital of Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43125 Parma, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2023 Jan 9;12(2):541. doi: 10.3390/jcm12020541.
Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49−3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78−1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40−0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29−3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18−0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.
目的。经导管主动脉瓣置入术(ViV-TAVI)已成为治疗退化生物瓣膜的再次手术主动脉瓣置换术(Redo-SVAR)的一种有效替代干预措施。然而,关于这两种治疗方法的长期结果,尚无确凿证据。本荟萃分析的目的是通过重建事件发生时间数据,分析Redo-SVAR与ViV-TAVI的长期结果。方法。检索策略包括全面回顾2000年1月1日至2022年9月30日期间在三个电子数据库(PubMed、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)和EMBASE)中发表的相关研究。检索相关研究进行分析。主要终点是所有死亡的长期死亡率。通过Cox回归模型、地标分析和完全参数模型进行比较。采用随机效应方法进行荟萃分析。结果。12项研究符合纳入标准并纳入最终分析。共纳入3547例患者。Redo-SAVR组包括1783例患者,ViV-TAVI组包括1764例受试者。Redo-SAVR在30天内全因死亡率发生率较高[风险比(HR)2.12;95%置信区间(CI)=1.49−3.03;p<0.0001],而在30天至1年之间未观察到差异(HR=1.03;95%CI=0.78−1.33;p=0.92)。从1年起,Redo-SAVR显示出更长的获益时间(HR=0.52;95%CI=0.40−0.67;p<0.0001)。心血管死亡的结果也得到了证实(干预后1个月内HR=2.04;95%CI=1.29−3.22;p=0.001;4年随访时HR=0.35;95%CI=0.18−0.71;p=0.003)。结论。尽管在五年随访中Redo-SAVR和ViV-TAVI的长期结果似乎相似,但ViV-TAVI在30天内的死亡率显著较低。这一优势在30天至1年之间消失,并在干预1年后逆转,有利于Redo-SAVR。