Transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes in patients with high gradient versus low ejection fraction low gradient severe aortic stenosis: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND

The outcome of Low Flow-Low Gradient (LF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients who underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) procedure is not well defined. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of TAVR in LF-LG AS patients to the more traditional high gradient (HG) aortic stenosis.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched for controlled randomized and non-randomized studies from 4 online databases. We are presenting the data using risk ratios (95 % confidence intervals) and measuring heterogeneity using Higgins' I index.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 4380 patients with 3425 HG patients and 955 LF-LG patients from 6 cohort (5 retrospective and 1 prospective) studies. When compared to LFLG; TAVR was associated with significantly lower 30 days mortality in HG patients (5.1 % vs 7.4 %; relative risk [RR]: 0.55; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 0.86; p < 0.01). Similar findings were also observed in 12-month cardiovascular (CV) mortality (5.5 % vs. 10.4 %; RR: 0.47; 95 % CI: 0.38 to 0.60; p < 0.01 and 12-month all-cause mortality (15.9 % vs 20.9 %; RR: 0.70; 95 % CI: 0.49 to 1.00; p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in myocardial infarction (MI) after TAVR between HG and LF-LG at 30 days (0.16 % vs. 0.95 %; p < 0.09) or 12 months (0.43 % vs. 0.95 %; p = 0.20). Similarly, there was no difference in stroke rates at 30 days (2.9 % vs. 2.86 %) or at 12 months (3.6 % vs. 3.06 %).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Patients with LF-LG severe AS who underwent TAVR had worse 1-year all-cause mortality, 30-day all-cause, and 1-year CV mortality when compared to TAVR in HG severe AS. There was no difference in MI or stroke rates. Therefore, with heart team discussion and informed patient decision regarding the risk and benefit, TAVR would still offer better outcomes in LFLG AS compared to conservative medical management.