-
BMJ Open Dec 2021Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The choice of procedure depends on several factors, including the clinical judgement of the heart team and patient preferences, which are captured by actively informing and involving patients in a process of shared decision making (SDM). We synthesised the most up-to-date and accessible evidence on the benefits and risks that may be associated with TAVI versus SAVR to support SDM in this highly personalised decision-making process.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Wiley) were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 with no language restrictions. Reference lists of included studies were searched to identify additional studies.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TAVI versus SAVR in patients with SAS and reported on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit or hospital, valve durability, rehospitalisation/reintervention, stroke (any stroke or major/disabling stroke), myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (NOW-AF), endocarditis, acute kidney injury (AKI), recovery time or pain were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane tool (one reviewer extracted/assessed the data, and the second reviewer checked it). Dichotomous data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects to generate a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Continuous data were pooled using the inverse-variance method with random-effects and expressed as a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I statistic.
RESULTS
8969 records were retrieved and nine RCTs (61 records) were ultimately included (n=8818 participants). Two RCTs recruited high-risk patients, two RCTs recruited intermediate-risk patients, two RCTs recruited low-risk patients, one RCT recruited high-risk (≥70 years) or any-risk (≥80 years) patients; and two RCTs recruited all-risk or 'operable' patients. While there was no overall change in the risk of dying from any cause (30 day: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 5 years: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.22), cardiovascular mortality (30 day: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.39; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 2 years: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12), or any type of stroke (30 day: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.14;≤1 year: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.23; 5 years: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30), the risk of several clinical outcomes was significantly decreased (major bleeding, AKI, NOW-AF) or significantly increased (major vascular complications, PPM implantation) for TAVI vs SAVR. TAVI was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay vs SAVR (MD -3.08 days, 95% CI -4.86 to -1.29; 4 RCTs, n=2758 participants). Subgroup analysis generally favoured TAVI patients receiving implantation via the transfemoral (TF) route (vs non-TF); receiving a balloon-expandable (vs self-expanding) valve; and those at low-intermediate risk (vs high risk). All RCTs were rated at high ROB, predominantly due to lack of blinding and selective reporting.
CONCLUSIONS
No overall change in the risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular mortality was identified but 95% CIs were often wide, indicating uncertainty. TAVI may reduce the risk of certain side effects while SAVR may reduce the risk of others. Most long-term (5-year) results are limited to older patients at high surgical risk (ie, early trials), therefore more data are required for low risk populations. Ultimately, neither surgical technique was considered dominant, and these results suggest that every patient with SAS should be individually engaged in SDM to make evidence-based, personalised decisions around their care based on the various benefits and risks associated with each treatment.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
CRD42019138171.
Topics: Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Risk Factors; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34873012
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054222 -
Circulation Nov 2016Untreated, severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis is associated with a dismal prognosis. The only treatment shown to improve survival is aortic valve replacement; however,... (Review)
Review
Untreated, severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis is associated with a dismal prognosis. The only treatment shown to improve survival is aortic valve replacement; however, before symptoms occur, aortic stenosis is preceded by a silent, latent phase characterized by a slow progression at the molecular, cellular, and tissue levels. In theory, specific medical therapy should halt aortic stenosis progression, reduce its hemodynamic repercussions on left ventricular function and remodeling, and improve clinical outcomes. In the present report, we performed a systematic review of studies focusing on the medical treatment of patients with aortic stenosis. Lipid-lowering therapy, antihypertensive drugs, and anticalcific therapy have been the main drug classes studied in this setting and are reviewed in depth. A critical appraisal of the preclinical and clinical evidence is provided, and future research avenues are presented.
Topics: Aortic Valve Stenosis; Humans
PubMed: 27895025
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.023997 -
European Heart Journal Jul 2017Mechanical valves used for aortic valve replacement (AVR) continue to be associated with bleeding risks because of anticoagulation therapy, while bioprosthetic valves... (Review)
Review
Mechanical valves used for aortic valve replacement (AVR) continue to be associated with bleeding risks because of anticoagulation therapy, while bioprosthetic valves are at risk of structural valve deterioration requiring reoperation. This risk/benefit ratio of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves has led American and European guidelines on valvular heart disease to be consistent in recommending the use of mechanical prostheses in patients younger than 60 years of age. Despite these recommendations, the use of bioprosthetic valves has significantly increased over the last decades in all age groups. A systematic review of manuscripts applying propensity-matching or multivariable analysis to compare the usage of mechanical vs. bioprosthetic valves found either similar outcomes between the two types of valves or favourable outcomes with mechanical prostheses, particularly in younger patients. The risk/benefit ratio and choice of valves will be impacted by developments in valve designs, anticoagulation therapy, reducing the required international normalized ratio, and transcatheter and minimally invasive procedures. However, there is currently no evidence to support lowering the age threshold for implanting a bioprosthesis. Physicians in the Heart Team and patients should be cautious in pursuing more bioprosthetic valve use until its benefit is clearly proven in middle-aged patients.
Topics: Aortic Valve; Bioprosthesis; Heart Valve Diseases; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Humans; Prosthesis Failure; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28444168
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx141 -
Cardiovascular Research Jul 2023Although evidence indicates the association of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] with atherosclerosis, the link with calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is unclear. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Although evidence indicates the association of lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] with atherosclerosis, the link with calcific aortic valve disease (CAVD) is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores the connection between Lp(a) and aortic valve calcification and stenosis (AVS). We included all relevant studies, indexed in eight databases, up to February 2023. A total of 44 studies (163 139 subjects) were included, with 16 of them being further meta-analysed. Despite considerable heterogeneity, most studies support the relationship between Lp(a) and CAVD, especially in younger populations, with evidence of early aortic valve micro-calcification in elevated-Lp(a) populations. The quantitative synthesis showed higher Lp(a) levels, by 22.63 nmol/L (95% CI: 9.98-35.27), for patients with AVS, while meta-regressing the data revealed smaller Lp(a) differences for older populations with a higher proportion of females. The meta-analysis of eight studies providing genetic data, revealed that the minor alleles of both rs10455872 and rs3798220 LPA gene loci were associated with higher risk for AVS (pooled odds ratio 1.42; 95% CI: 1.34-1.50 and 1.27; 95% CI: 1.09-1.48, respectively). Importantly, high-Lp(a) individuals displayed not only faster AVS progression, by a mean difference of 0.09 m/s/year (95% CI: 0.09-0.09), but also a higher risk of serious adverse outcomes, including death (pooled hazard ratio 1.39; 95% CI: 1.01-1.90). These summary findings highlight the effect of Lp(a) on CAVD initiation, progression and outcomes, and support the early onset of Lp(a)-related subclinical lesions before clinical evidence.
Topics: Female; Humans; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Hyperlipidemias; Lipoprotein(a); Risk Factors
PubMed: 37078819
DOI: 10.1093/cvr/cvad062 -
Current Problems in Cardiology Mar 2023Despite the increasing popularity of Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with high surgical risk, there is no current guideline for the management... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Despite the increasing popularity of Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with high surgical risk, there is no current guideline for the management of patients following the intervention. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarize and analyse all clinical data and evidence regarding the effectiveness and outcomes of CR following TAVI. The first meta-analysis measured the walked distance in the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and the second meta-analysis included studies that showed the Barthel Index (BI) before and after CR. The mean distance walked prior to CR was 235.88 ± 69.36 m increased to 292.12 ± 54.92 m after rehabilitation, signifying a moderate clinically relevant effect size (0.593 (0.42, 0.76); P=0.00). The mean BI score before CR was 76.6 ± 11.5 which increased to 89.8 ± 5.5 after the programme and similarly demonstrated a significant standardized mean improvement (0.75 (0.57, 0.93); I= 0.00). Exercise-based CR in patients with aortic stenosis treated with TAVI demonstrated a significant improvement in exercise tolerance and functional independence shown by the 6MWT and BI.
Topics: Humans; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Cardiac Rehabilitation; Treatment Outcome; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Exercise Test; Aortic Valve; Risk Factors; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
PubMed: 36493915
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101531 -
The Journal of Invasive Cardiology Mar 2022Nonagenarians represent only a small proportion of patients included in large transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials, but will become a relevant future... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nonagenarians represent only a small proportion of patients included in large transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) trials, but will become a relevant future population in need of treatment due to demographic change. Thus, this study sought to evaluate outcomes of TAVR for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in nonagenarian patients.
METHODS
We screened Medline/Pubmed for studies that stated specific outcomes for nonagenarians undergoing TAVR. A weighted meta-analysis was conducted, calculating pooled estimate rates using a binary random-effects model for dichotomous variables, and comparing non-dichotomous outcomes with a continuous random-effects model.
RESULTS
Data from 23 studies including 16,094 nonagenarians were merged; 53.4% were women. Despite reasonable rates of comorbidities, Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score was 10.2 ± 5.4. Pooled estimate rate of procedural success was 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7-96.6), with major vascular complications occurring in 6.3% (95% CI, 2.7-9.8) and at least moderate postprocedural paravalvular leak in 7.5% (95% CI, 4.4-10.6). The rate of periprocedural stroke or transient ischemic attack was 2.6% (95% CI, 2.0-3.2). At 30 days, the pooled estimate of mortality was 6.1% (95% CI, 4.7-7.4) and a permanent pacemaker was implanted in 12.6% (95% CI, 7.6-17.6). After 1 year, the mortality rate was 20.5% (95% CI, 15.9-25.1).
CONCLUSION
TAVR in nonagenarians is an effective and safe procedure, with encouraging outcomes given the general life expectancy of these patients. Currently, only selected nonagenarians are undergoing TAVR, but their number will grow as life expectancy continues to increase in the developed world. Specific research to identify ideal candidates and techniques in this cohort is needed.
Topics: Aged, 80 and over; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Female; Humans; Male; Nonagenarians; Risk Factors; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35235529
DOI: No ID Found -
Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases 2020Calcific aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common form of acquired valvular heart disease needing intervention and our understanding of this disease has evolved...
Calcific aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the most common form of acquired valvular heart disease needing intervention and our understanding of this disease has evolved from one of degenerative calcification to that of an active process driven by the interplay of genetic factors and chronic inflammation modulated by risk factors such as smoking, hypertension and elevated cholesterol. Lipoprotein(a) [Lp (a)] is a cholesterol rich particle secreted by the liver which functions as the major lipoprotein carrier of phosphocholine-containing oxidized phospholipids. Lp(a) levels are largely genetically determined by polymorphisms in the LPA gene. While there is an extensive body of evidence linking Lp(a) to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, emerging evidence now suggests a similar association of Lp(a) to calcific AS. In this article, we performed a systematic review of all published literature to assess the association between Lp(a) and calcific aortic valve (AV) disease. In addition, we review the potential mechanisms by which Lp(a) influences the progression of valve disease. Our review identified a total of 21 studies, varying from case-control studies, prospective or retrospective observational cohort studies to Mendelian randomized studies that assessed the association between Lp(a) and calcific AS. All but one of the above studies demonstrated significant association between elevated Lp(a) and calcific AS. We conclude that there is convincing evidence supporting a causal association between elevated Lp(a) and calcific AS. In addition, elevated Lp(a) predicts a faster hemodynamic progression of AS, and increased risk of AV replacement, especially in younger patients. Further research into the clinical utility of Lp(a) as a marker for predicting the incidence, progression, and outcomes of sclerodegenerative AV disease is needed.
Topics: Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Calcinosis; Humans; Lipoprotein(a)
PubMed: 32526213
DOI: 10.1016/j.pcad.2020.06.002 -
Future Cardiology Jun 2022Aortic stenosis with cardiac amyloidosis (CA-AS) is common in the elderly. We provide an overview and a meta-analysis of outcomes after aortic valve (AV) intervention.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Aortic stenosis with cardiac amyloidosis (CA-AS) is common in the elderly. We provide an overview and a meta-analysis of outcomes after aortic valve (AV) intervention. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Weighted pooled analysis showed a non-significant higher risk of death in CA-AS patients following surgical or transcatheter AV replacement. After transcatheter AV replacement, the risk of death in CA-AS patients was comparable to that associated with aortic stenosis alone (risk ratio: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.77-1.96; p = 0.39; I = 0%). An AV intervention is possibly not futile in CA-AS and should not be denied to patients with this condition.
Topics: Aged; Amyloidosis; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Humans; Risk Factors; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35420047
DOI: 10.2217/fca-2021-0118 -
Journal of the American Heart... Jan 2023Background The Ross operation appears to restore normal survival in young and middle-aged adults with aortic valve disease. However, there are limited data comparing it... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Background The Ross operation appears to restore normal survival in young and middle-aged adults with aortic valve disease. However, there are limited data comparing it with conventional aortic valve replacement. Herein, we compared outcomes of the Ross procedure with mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (M-AVR and B-AVR, respectively). Methods and Results MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through March 2022 to identify randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies that investigated outcomes of patients aged ≥16 years undergoing the Ross procedure, M-AVR, or B-AVR. The systematic literature search identified 2 randomized controlled trials and 8 propensity score-matched studies involving a total of 4812 patients (Ross: n=1991; M-AVR: n=2019; and B-AVR: n=802). All-cause mortality was significantly lower in the Ross procedure group compared with M-AVR (hazard ratio [HR] [95% CI], 0.58 [0.35-0.97]; =0.035) and B-AVR (HR [95% CI], 0.32 [0.18-0.59]; <0.001) groups. The reintervention rate was lower after the Ross procedure and M-AVR compared with B-AVR, whereas it was higher after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR. Major bleeding rate was lower after the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR. Long-term stroke rate was lower following the Ross procedure compared with M-AVR and B-AVR. The rate of endocarditis was also lower after the Ross procedure compared with B-AVR. Conclusions Improved long-term outcomes of the Ross procedure are demonstrated compared with conventional M-AVR and B-AVR options. These results highlight a need to enhance the recognition of the Ross procedure and revisit current guidelines on the optimal valve substitute for young and middle-aged patients.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Middle Aged; Aortic Valve; Aortic Valve Insufficiency; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Network Meta-Analysis; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome; Adolescent; Young Adult
PubMed: 36565200
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.122.027715 -
European Journal of Cardio-thoracic... Sep 2023To support clinical decision-making in children with aortic valve disease, by compiling the available evidence on outcome after paediatric aortic valve repair (AVr). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To support clinical decision-making in children with aortic valve disease, by compiling the available evidence on outcome after paediatric aortic valve repair (AVr).
METHODS
A systematic review of literature reporting clinical outcome after paediatric AVr (mean age at surgery <18 years) published between 1 January 1990 and 23 December 2021 was conducted. Early event risks, late event rates and time-to-event data were pooled. A microsimulation model was employed to simulate the lives of individual children, infants and neonates following AVr.
RESULTS
Forty-one publications were included, encompassing 2 623 patients with 17 217 patient-years of follow-up (median follow-up: 7.3 years; range: 1.0-14.4 years). Pooled mean age during repair for aortic stenosis in children (<18 years), infants (<1 year) or neonates (<30 days) was 5.2 ± 3.9 years, 35 ± 137 days and 11 ± 6 days, respectively. Pooled early mortality after stenosis repair in children, infants and neonates, respectively, was 3.5% (95% confidence interval: 1.9-6.5%), 7.4% (4.2-13.0%) and 10.7% (6.8-16.9%). Pooled late reintervention rate after stenosis repair in children, infants and neonates, respectively, was 3.31%/year (1.66-6.63%/year), 6.84%/year (3.95-11.83%/year) and 6.32%/year (3.04-13.15%/year); endocarditis 0.07%/year (0.03-0.21%/year), 0.23%/year (0.07-0.71%/year) and 0.49%/year (0.18-1.29%/year); and valve thrombosis 0.05%/year (0.01-0.26%/year), 0.15%/year (0.04-0.53%/year) and 0.19%/year (0.05-0.77%/year). Microsimulation-based mean life expectancy in the first 20 years for children, infants and neonates with aortic stenosis, respectively, was 18.4 years (95% credible interval: 18.1-18.7 years; relative survival compared to the matched general population: 92.2%), 16.8 years (16.5-17.0 years; relative survival: 84.2%) and 15.9 years (14.8-17.0 years; relative survival: 80.1%). Microsimulation-based 20-year risk of reintervention in children, infants and neonates, respectively, was 75.2% (72.9-77.2%), 53.8% (51.9-55.7%) and 50.8% (47.0-57.6%).
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term outcomes after paediatric AVr for stenosis are satisfactory and dependent on age at surgery. Despite a high hazard of reintervention for valve dysfunction and slightly impaired survival relative to the general population, AVr is associated with low valve-related event occurrences and should be considered in children with aortic valve disease.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Child; Infant; Adolescent; Aortic Valve; Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation; Heart Valve Prosthesis; Constriction, Pathologic; Aortic Valve Stenosis; Treatment Outcome; Retrospective Studies; Reoperation
PubMed: 37584683
DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezad284