-
Netherlands Heart Journal : Monthly... Dec 2023The importance of revascularisation of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is unclear....
OBJECTIVE
The importance of revascularisation of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is unclear. Despite the lack of randomised controlled trials comparing different revascularisation strategies, guidelines currently recommend percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with significant proximal CAD undergoing TAVI.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a systematic search was conducted to identify studies comparing TAVI with and without PCI in patients with significant CAD on pre-TAVI coronary angiography. Endpoints were all-cause mortality, cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction and major bleeding.
RESULTS
In total, 14 studies were included, involving 3838 patients, of whom 1806 (47%) underwent PCI before TAVI. All-cause mortality did not differ significantly between TAVI with and without preceding PCI at 30 days, 1 year and > 1 year. There were no significant differences in risk of cardiac death, stroke or myocardial infarction between the groups. However, TAVI performed with PCI resulted in a higher risk of major bleeding within 30 days after TAVI (odds ratio: 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.46-0.94).
CONCLUSION
This systematic review and meta-analysis showed no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients with concomitant significant CAD who were treated with TAVI with and without preceding PCI at both short- and long-term follow-up. However, there was a higher risk of major bleeding at 30 days in patients undergoing TAVI with preceding PCI. In the context of serious risk of bias in the included studies, results of randomised controlled trials are warranted.
PubMed: 37910336
DOI: 10.1007/s12471-023-01824-w -
Anatolian Journal of Cardiology Nov 2023Perfect heart valve prostheses have optimized hemodynamics, reduced surgical morbidity, long-lasting durability, and extended patient survival with greater quality of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Perfect heart valve prostheses have optimized hemodynamics, reduced surgical morbidity, long-lasting durability, and extended patient survival with greater quality of life. Mechanical valves are recommended; however, young children may need anticoagulant medication for life. In this study, we looked at the success rate and viability of aortic valve neocuspidization (AVNeo) surgery for a variety of aortic disorders.
METHODS
A methodical search strategy was used to fully evaluate the AVNeo results. Boolean operators were used to combine important words like 'Ozaki Procedure,' 'Aortic Valve Neocuspidization,' 'AVNeo,' and associated terms. Reputable databases such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were the focus of our search. Study quality was assessed using a critical evaluation created with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool.
RESULTS
The findings are summarized in the 'Results' section that contains descriptive and critical analysis, ramifications, and explanations. According to research, AVNeo improved valve function and had few side effects. Aortic valve neocuspidization has a lower mean pressure gradient and a larger mean efficient orifice area than Trifecta. Aortic valve neocuspidization surgery reduces aortic valve regurgitation and pressure gradients. Postoperative echocardiograms indicated a decrease in peak and a rise in mean pressure gradient.
CONCLUSION
The Ozaki method restores a healthy laminar flow pattern while preventing bivalvular disease. Ozaki procedure should be explored for valve repair in infants with truncal valve and congenital aortic disease. Aortic valve tricuspidization with glutaraldehyde-treated autologous pericardium results in considerable effective orifice area, modest pressure gradients, and little regurgitation.
Topics: Child; Humans; Child, Preschool; Aortic Valve; Quality of Life; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Pericardium; Aortic Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37909351
DOI: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2023.3477 -
Angiology Aug 2023While TAVI is widely used, optimal medical therapy to reduce the mortality rate after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still unclear. We performed a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
While TAVI is widely used, optimal medical therapy to reduce the mortality rate after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is still unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of statins on mortality following TAVI. Present systematic review of the literature was performed using Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science; all studies reported all-cause mortality in patients who underwent TAVI and received or did not receive statin therapy. Data were analyzed using random-effects models. Seventeen articles (21 380 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. Statin therapy was associated with a reduction of all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio [HR] = .78, 95% Confidence interval [CI] .68-.89, < .001). Moderate between-study heterogeneity was observed (I = 45.2). High-intensity statin therapy was more effective than low or moderate intensity statin therapy in reduction of all-cause mortality (Risk ratio [RR] = .62, 95% CI 0.45-.85, = .003, I = .0). Statin therapy could reduce the mid-term all-cause mortality rate following TAVI. However, all included studies were observational and, therefore, randomized controlled trials are still needed to assess the effect of statin therapy on mortality after TAVI.
Topics: Humans; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Aortic Valve; Treatment Outcome; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36067358
DOI: 10.1177/00033197221124778 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Jul 2023Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) is a safe and effective surgical procedure to treat aortic root aneurysm. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate how this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (VSARR) is a safe and effective surgical procedure to treat aortic root aneurysm. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate how this procedure might differ in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve (TAV).
DESIGN
Meta-analysis with meta-regression and systematic review.
SETTING
Systematic search in the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase.
INTERVENTIONS
All observational studies of VSARR in patients with BAV or TAV were included in our study. Studies were included without any restrictions on language or publication date. A trial sequential analysis and a post-hoc meta-regression was performed on the main outcomes.
RESULT
Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1138 patients in BAV group, and 2125 patients in TAV group. No significant differences in gender and age were observed between BAV and TAV patients. BAV and TAV patients showed no differences in in-hospital mortality rate [0.00% vs. 1.93%; RR (95% CI) 0.33 (0.09, 1.26), I = 0%, P = 0.11] and the rate of in-hospital reoperation [5.64% vs. 5.99%; RR (95% CI) 1.01(0.59, 1.73), I = 33%, P = 0.98]. The overall long-term mortality rate of BAV patients was better than that of TAV patients [1.63% vs. 8.15%; RR (95% CI) 0.34 (0.13, 0.86), I = 0%, P = 0.02]. During the follow-up observation period, patients in TAV group showed small but no statistic advantage in 3-year, 5-year, and over 10-year incidences of reintervention. Regarding the secondary endpoints, the two groups showed similar aortic cross-clamping time and total cardiopulmonary bypass time.
CONCLUSION
The VSARR techniques yielded similar clinical outcomes in both BAV and TAV patients. Although patients with BAV might have a higher incidence of reinterventions after initial VSARR, it is still a safe and effective approach to treat aortic root dilation with or without aortic valve insufficiency. TAV patients showed small but no statistic advantage in long-term (over 10 years) reintervention rate, which means, patients with BAV may face a higher risk of reintervention in the clinic.
Topics: Humans; Aortic Valve; Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease; Heart Valve Diseases; Aorta; Tricuspid Valve; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37400892
DOI: 10.1186/s13019-023-02329-8 -
Archives of Cardiovascular Diseases Dec 2023Leaflet thrombosis and reduced leaflet motion have become a concern with the expanding use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in lower-risk patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Leaflet thrombosis and reduced leaflet motion have become a concern with the expanding use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in lower-risk patients.
AIMS
To assess the proportions, predictors and clinical impact of leaflet thrombosis and reduced leaflet motion after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
METHODS
We performed a meta-analysis of studies assessing the proportions of and/or clinical outcomes according to the presence of leaflet thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement identified with computed tomography and/or echocardiography.
RESULTS
Fifty-three studies, representing 25,258 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement, were considered. The proportion of leaflet thrombosis was 5.2% overall, and was higher in computed tomography versus echocardiography (16.4% vs. 1.1%, respectively); reduced leaflet motion was identified in 11% of patients with four-dimensional computed tomography. Intra-annular bioprostheses were associated with a higher proportion of leaflet thrombosis, whereas chronic oral anticoagulation was protective for leaflet thrombosis in both computed tomography and echocardiographic studies (9.7% vs. 17.5%; relative risk [RR]: 0.51, 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.37-0.71 and 0.9% vs. 2.7%; RR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.06-0.79, respectively) and for reduced leaflet motion (2.5% vs. 12.4%; RR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13-0.76). Leaflet thrombosis was not associated with an increased risk of death, but with a higher risk of stroke in computed tomography studies (2.8% vs. 2.4%; RR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.05-2.55), a difference more pronounced when considering reduced leaflet motion (3.5% vs. 1.7%; RR: 2.39, 95% CI: 0.63-8.34).
CONCLUSIONS
The proportion of leaflet thrombosis is highly variable according to the screening approach, the type of valve and the use of oral anticoagulation. The occurrence of cerebral events is increased when leaflet thrombosis and/or reduced leaflet motion are diagnosed, but leaflet thrombosis has no impact on survival.
Topics: Humans; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Aortic Valve; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Thrombosis; Anticoagulants; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37968182
DOI: 10.1016/j.acvd.2023.10.003 -
Cardiology in Review Oct 2023Aortic valve surgery is a common procedure used to treat significant aortic valve stenosis or insufficiency. Some of these patients have coexisting pathology affecting...
Aortic valve surgery is a common procedure used to treat significant aortic valve stenosis or insufficiency. Some of these patients have coexisting pathology affecting the ascending aorta requiring ascending aorta replacement (AAR). Although the outcomes of these procedures are independently positive, it is proposed that concomitant AAR improves outcomes and minimizes the chances of future ascending aorta replacement. A comprehensive literature search for relevant studies published since 2010 comparing outcomes of aortic valve repair and replacement with or without concomitant ascending aorta replacement was undertaken using electronic databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase Ovid, and SCOPUS. Major exclusion criteria were (1) conference posters, literature reviews, editorials; (2) aortic root surgery, aortic arch surgery, or other surgeries (3) case series with less than 5 participants. A total of 1189 patients from 6 retrospective cohort studies were included in the final review, from which clinical outcomes such as mortality and complications were compared. Mortality rates were similar in both intervention groups. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in reexploration rates due to bleeding, stroke, postoperative dialysis, and atrial fibrillation. Survival rates varied but had no significant difference between interventions. Both isolated aortic valve surgery and concomitant AAR procedures offer comparable favourable outcomes in terms of mortality, survival rates, and complication risks. However, the evidence is limited by the lack of randomized controlled trials. We recommend that future studies should standardize reporting on postoperative recovery, complications, long-term freedom from reoperations, and long-term changes to aorta dimensions.
PubMed: 37882686
DOI: 10.1097/CRD.0000000000000623 -
Open Heart Aug 2023Assessment of frailty prior to aortic valve intervention is recommended in European and North American valvular heart disease guidelines. However, there is a lack of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Assessment of frailty prior to aortic valve intervention is recommended in European and North American valvular heart disease guidelines. However, there is a lack of consensus on how it is best measured. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a well-validated measure of frailty that is relatively quick to calculate. This meta-analysis sought to examine whether the CFS predicts mortality and morbidity following either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).
METHODS
Nine electronic databases were searched systematically for data on clinical outcomes post-TAVI/SAVR, where patients had undergone preoperative frailty assessment using the CFS. The primary endpoint was 12-month mortality. TAVI and SAVR data were assessed and reported separately. For each individual study, the incidence of adverse outcomes was extracted according to a CFS score of 5-9 (ie, frail) versus 1-4 (ie, non-frail), with meta-analysis performed using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Of 2612 records screened, nine were included in the review (five TAVI, three SAVR and one which included both interventions). Among 4923 TAVI patients, meta-analysis showed 12-month mortality rates of 19.1% for the frail cohort versus 9.8% for the non-frail cohort (RR 2.53 (1.63 to 3.95), p<0.001, I=83%). For the smaller cohort of SAVR patients (n=454), mortality rates were 20.3% versus 3.9% for the frail and non-frail cohorts, respectively (RR 5.08 (2.31 to 11.15), p<0.001, I=5%).
CONCLUSIONS
Frailty, as determined by the CFS, was associated with an increased mortality risk in the 12 months following either TAVI or SAVR. These data would support its use in the preoperative assessment of elderly patients undergoing aortic valve interventions.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Frailty; Risk Factors; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
PubMed: 37567604
DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2023-002354 -
Heart Failure Reviews Mar 2024Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common heritable myocardial disorder worldwide. Current pharmacological treatment options are limited. Mavacamten, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common heritable myocardial disorder worldwide. Current pharmacological treatment options are limited. Mavacamten, a first-in-class cardiac myosin inhibitor, targets the main underlying pathology of HCM. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Mavacamten in patients with HCM. PRISMA flow chart was utilized using PubMed, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases for all up-to-date studies using pre-defined keywords. Pre-specified efficacy outcomes comprised several parameters, including an improvement in peak oxygen consumption (pVO2) and ≥ 1 NYHA class, the need for septal reduction therapy (SRT), change from baseline in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), changes in biochemical markers and LVEF, along with peak left ventricular outflow tract gradient at rest and after Valsalva maneuver. Safety outcomes included morbidity and serious adverse events. This systematic review included five studies, four RCTs and one non-randomized control trial comprised a total of 524 (Mavacamten [273, 54.3%] vs placebo [230, 45.7%] adult (≥ 18 years) patients with a mean age of 56 years. The study. comprised patients with Caucasian and Chinese ethnicity and patients with obstructive (oHCM) and non-obstructive (nHCM) HCM. Most baseline characteristics were similar between the treatment and placebo groups. Mavacamten showed a statistically significant increase in the frequency of the primary composite endpoint (RR = 1.92, 95% CI [1.28, 2.88]), ≥ 1 NYHA class improvement (RR = 2.10, 95% CI [1.66, 2.67]), a significant decrease in LVEF, peak left ventricular outflow tract gradient at rest and after Valsalva maneuver. Mavacamten also showed a significant reduction in SRT rates (RR = 0.29, 95% CI [0.21, 0.40], p < 0.00001), KCCQ clinical summary scores (MD = 8.08, 95% CI [4.80, 11.37], P < 0.00001) troponin levels and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide levels. However, there was no statistically significant difference between Mavacamten and placebo regarding the change from baseline peak oxygen consumption. Mavacamten use resulted in a small increase in adverse events but no statistically significant increment in serious adverse events. Our study showed that Mavacamten is a safe and effective treatment option for Caucasian and Chinese patients with HCM on the short-term. Further research is needed to explore the long-term safety and efficacy of Mavacamten with HCM. In addition, adequately powered studies including patients with nHCM is needed to ascertain befits of Mavacamten in those patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic; Heart; Benzylamines; Myocardium; Uracil
PubMed: 38112937
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-023-10375-6 -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Feb 2024Neuraxial anesthesia (NA) has been contraindicated in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) due to concerns of sympathetic blockade and hemodynamic instability. These... (Review)
Review
Neuraxial anesthesia (NA) has been contraindicated in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) due to concerns of sympathetic blockade and hemodynamic instability. These considerations are based on precautionary expert recommendations, supported by expected physiologic effects, but in the absence of any published scientific evidence. In light of the increasing elderly population and the prevalence of AS, this systematic review compiles available literature on NA in patients with AS to address the understanding of the anesthetic practice and safety in this population. Using a systematic approach, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies of patients with AS who exclusively received NA. Primary outcomes included intraoperative and postoperative complications. Of 1,433 citations, 61 met full-text inclusion criteria, including 3,228 patients undergoing noncardiac (n = 3,146, 97.5%), obstetric (n = 69, 2.1%), and cardiac (n = 13, 0.4%) procedures. Significant data heterogeneity (local anesthetic dosing, intraoperative interventions, and measured outcomes) prevented formal metanalysis, but descriptive data are presented. Spinal block (n = 2,856, 88.5%) and epidural anesthesia (n = 397, 12.3%) were administered most frequently. Hypotension requiring vasopressors was the most common intraoperative complication-noncardiac (n = 16, 9.9%), obstetric (n = 6, 13.0%), and cardiac (n = 1, 7.7%)-with resolution in all patients and no reported intraoperative cardiovascular collapse or mortality. The relative risk of different AS severities remains unclear, and optimal medication dosing remains elusive. The authors' data suggested that NA may not be contraindicated in carefully selected patients with AS. The authors' results should inform the design of future prospective studies comparing NA and general anesthesia in patients with AS.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Spinal; Anesthetics; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Postoperative Complications; Prospective Studies; Contraindications, Procedure
PubMed: 37880038
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2023.09.027 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Oct 2023To compare functional and health related quality of life outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparing functional and quality of life outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
To compare functional and health related quality of life outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with critical aortic stenosis (AS) across low to high-risk surgical candidates. These patient-centred factors will be compared between both groups in the short to medium term time frames and will aid in shared decision making between patients and healthcare workers.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials which compared TAVI with SAVR and reported on quality of life (QoL) and functional scores. The scores used were the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), Euroqol-5DL (EQ5DL), the short form-36/12 (SF-36/12) and the NYHA.
RESULTS
We identified eight trials with a total of 8898 participants. Both groups showed improvements from baseline at one month. At one month there was a statistically significant difference in standardised mean difference (SMD) in favour of TAVI for EQ5DL (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.26,0.49), KCCQ (SMD 0.53,95% CI 0.48, 0.58), SF physical summary (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.78) and SF mental summary (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 - 0.40). At one year there was no statistically significant difference between any of these QoL metrics. For NYHA, no significant difference in odds ratio of class III/IV was observed at one month between TAVI and SAVR (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83, 1.07), however, TAVI was associated with reduced odds ratio of NYHA class I/II at one year (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78, 0.98).
CONCLUSION
Both groups were associated with improvements in QoL and functional outcomes with TAVI reporting more significant improvements in QoL at one-month post-procedures. No significant improvements between groups were seen at one year. This is the largest meta-analysis comparing post-operative health-related quality of life outcomes post SAVR and TAVI and has major implications in shared decision making for the treatment of aortic stenosis.
Topics: Humans; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Aortic Valve; Quality of Life; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Treatment Outcome; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 37880616
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-023-03445-y