Groberio Julia Goese, Reginato Pedro Henrique, Streit Rafael Eduardo, Rocha Alice Volpato, Udoma-Udofa Ofonime Chantal, de Mesquita Cynthia Florêncio, Rivera André, Ulbrich Anderson Zampier, Farias Fábio Rocha, Gomes Wilton Francisco
Faculty of Medicine, Vila Velha University, Vila Velha, Espírito Santo, Brazil.
Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil.
Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2025 Jan;73(1):12-22. doi: 10.1007/s11748-024-02090-2. Epub 2024 Oct 3.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established interventions for alleviating symptoms and enhancing survival in individuals with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the long-term outcomes and incidence of reintervention associated with TAVI and SAVR remain uncertain.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the incidence of reintervention in TAVI versus SAVR. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Nine RCTs were included, with 5144 (50.9%) patients randomized to TAVI. Compared with SAVR, TAVI increased reinterventions (RR 1.89; 95% CI 1.29-2.76; p < 0.01) and the need for pacemakers (RR 1.91; 95% CI 1.49-2.45; p < 0.01). In addition, TAVI significantly reduced the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32- 0.59; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.92-1.16; p = 0.55), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.94-1.17; p = 0.44), stroke (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.80-1.17; p = 0.76), endocarditis (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.70-1.33; p = 0.82), and myocardial infarction (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.79-1.41; p = 0.72) between groups.
In patients with severe AS, TAVI significantly increased the incidence of reinterventions and the need for pacemakers as compared with SAVR.
经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)和外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)是用于缓解重度主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)患者症状并提高其生存率的既定干预措施。然而,与TAVI和SAVR相关的长期结局及再次干预的发生率仍不确定。
我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较TAVI与SAVR再次干预的发生率。检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库中的随机对照试验(RCT)。采用随机效应模型汇总风险比(RR)和95%置信区间(CI)。p值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
纳入9项RCT,共5144例(50.9%)患者被随机分配至TAVI组。与SAVR相比,TAVI增加了再次干预(RR 1.89;95% CI 1.29 - 2.76;p<0.01)以及起搏器植入需求(RR 1.91;95% CI 1.49 - 2.45;p<0.01)。此外,TAVI显著降低了新发房颤的发生率(RR 0.43;95% CI 0.32 - 0.59;p<0.01)。两组间在全因死亡率(RR 1.04;95% CI 0.92 - 1.16;p = 0.55)、心血管死亡率(RR 1.04;95% CI 0.94 - 1.17;p = 0.44)、卒中(RR 0.97;95% CI 0.80 - 1.17;p = 0.76)、心内膜炎(RR 0.96;95% CI 0.70 - 1.33;p = 0.82)和心肌梗死(RR 1.06;95% CI 0.79 - 1.41;p = 0.72)方面无显著差异。
在重度AS患者中,与SAVR相比,TAVI显著增加了再次干预的发生率以及起搏器植入需求。