Dataset Information

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) are typical diseases of the elderly. Up to 16% of older adults with severe AS referred to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a concomitant diagnosis of CA. CA-AS population suffers from reduced functional capacity and worse prognosis than AS patients. As the prognostic impact of TAVR in patients with CA-AS has been historically questioned and in light of recently published evidence, we aim to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the efficacy and safety of TAVR in CA-AS patients.

Methods and results

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies: (i) evaluating mortality with TAVR as compared with medical therapy in CA-AS patients and (ii) reporting complications and clinical outcomes of TAVR in CA-AS patients as compared with patients with AS alone. A total of seven observational studies were identified: four reported mortality with TAVR, and four reported complications and clinical outcomes after TAVR of patients with CA-AS compared with AS alone patients. In patients with CA-AS, the risk of mortality was lower with TAVR (n = 44) as compared with medical therapy (n = 36) [odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.73, I² = 0%, P = 0.001, number needed to treat = 3]. The safety profile of TAVR seems to be similar in patients with CA-AS (n = 75) as compared with those with AS alone (n = 536), with comparable risks of stroke, vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, and 30 day mortality, although CA-AS was associated with a trend towards an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.91-4.09, I² = 0%, P = 0.085). CA is associated with a numerically higher rate of long-term mortality and rehospitalizations following TAVR in patients with CA-AS as compared with those with AS alone.

Conclusions

TAVR is an effective and safe procedure in CA-AS patients, with a substantial survival benefit as compared with medical therapy, and a safety profile comparable with patients with AS alone except for a trend towards higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation.

SUBMITTER: Cannata F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9715797 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cannata Francesco F Chiarito Mauro M Pinto Giuseppe G Villaschi Alessandro A Sanz-Sánchez Jorge J Fazzari Fabio F Regazzoli Damiano D Mangieri Antonio A Bragato Renato M RM Bragato Renato M RM Colombo Antonio A Reimers Bernhard B Condorelli Gianluigi G Stefanini Giulio G GG

ESC heart failure 20220629 5

<h4>Aims</h4>Aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) are typical diseases of the elderly. Up to 16% of older adults with severe AS referred to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a concomitant diagnosis of CA. CA-AS population suffers from reduced functional capacity and worse prognosis than AS patients. As the prognostic impact of TAVR in patients with CA-AS has been historically questioned and in light of recently published evidence, we aim to provide a comprehensive s ...[more]

PMID: 35770333

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWe sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical adverse events in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) anatomy and the efficacy of balloon-expandable (BE) vs. self-expanding (SE) valves in the BAV population. Comparisons aforementioned will be made stratified into early- and new-generation devices. Differences of prosthetic geometry on CT between patients with BAV and TAV were presented. In addition, BAV morphological presentations in included studies were summarized.MethodObservational studies and a randomized controlled trial of patients with BAV undergoing TAVR were included according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.ResultsA total of 43 studies were included in the final analysis. In patients undergoing TAVR, type 1 BAV was the most common phenotype and type 2 BAV accounted for the least. Significant higher risks of conversion to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), the need of a second valve, a moderate or severe paravalvular leakage (PVL), device failure, acute kidney injury (AKI), and stroke were observed in patients with BAV than in patients with TAV during hospitalization. BAV had a higher risk of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) both at hospitalization and a 30-day follow-up. Risk of 1-year mortality was significantly lower in patients with BAV than that with TAV [odds ratio (OR) = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.97, p = 0.01]. BE transcatheter heart valves (THVs) had higher risks of annular rupture but a lower risk of the need of a second valve and a new PPI than SE THVs. Moreover, BE THV was less expanded and more elliptical in BAV than in TAV. In general, the rates of clinical adverse events were lower in new-generation THVs than in early-generation THVs in both BAV and TAV.ConclusionsDespite higher risks of conversion to SAVR, the need of a second valve, moderate or severe PVL, device failure, AKI, stroke, and new PPI, TAVR seems to be a viable option for selected patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), which demonstrated a potential benefit of 1-year survival, especially among lower surgical risk population using new-generation devices. Larger randomized studies are needed to guide patient selection and verified the durable performance of THVs in the BAV population.

Project description:Background:Patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant active cancer (AC) are considered high-risk patients and usually are not allowed to undergo surgical valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be an attractive option for them; however, little is known about the outcomes of TAVR in this subset of complex patients. Methods and results:In this meta-analysis, Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were searched (anytime up to April 2019) for studies evaluating the outcomes of TAVR in patients with or without AC. We assessed pooled estimates (with their 95% CIs) of the risk ratio (RR) for the all-cause mortality at the 30-day and 1-year follow-ups, a 4-point safety outcome (any bleeding, stroke, need for a pacemaker and acute kidney injury) and a 2-point efficacy outcome (device success and residual mean gradient (mean difference)). Three studies (5162 patients) were included. Of those patients, a total of 368 (7.1%) had AC. Apart from a significantly higher need for a postprocedural pacemaker (RR 1.29, 95%?CI 1.06 to 1.58, p=0.01), TAVR in patients with AC resulted in similar outcomes for safety and efficacy at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without AC. Patients with AC experienced similar rates of the all-cause mortality at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without (RR 0.92, 95%?CI 0.53 to 1.59, p=0.76); however, the all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients with AC at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.71, 95%?CI 1.26 to 2.33, p=0.0006). This mortality difference was independent of cancer stage (advanced or limited) at the 30-day follow-up but not at the 1-year follow-up; only patients with limited cancer stages showed similar all-cause mortality rates compared with those without cancer at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.22, 95%?CI 0.79 to 1.91, p=0.37). Conclusion:TAVR in patients with AC is associated with similar 30-day and potentially worse 1-year outcomes compared with those in patients without AC. The 1-year all-cause mortality appears to be dependent on the cancer stage. Involving a specialised oncologist who usually considers cancer stage in the decision-making process and applying additional preoperative scores such as frailty indices might refine the risk assessment process among these patients. PROSPERO registration number:CRD42019120416.

Project description:BackgroundStudies assessing outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis (AS) with hemodynamic subtypes have demonstrated mixed results with respect to outcomes and periprocedural complications. This study aimed to assess the outcomes of TAVR in patients across various hemodynamic subtypes of severe AS.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through September 2023 to identify all observational studies comparing outcomes of TAVR in patients with paradoxical low flow low gradient (pLFLG), classic LFLG, and high gradient AS (HGAS). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The secondary outcomes were components of MACE (mortality, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke). A bivariate, influential, and frequentist network meta-analysis model was used to obtain the net odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI.ResultsA total of 21 studies comprising 17,298 (8742 experimental and 8556 HGAS) patients were included in the quantitative analysis. TAVR was associated with a significant reduction in the mean aortic gradient, and an increase in the mean aortic valve area irrespective of the AS type. Compared with HGAS, TAVR in classic LFLG had a significantly higher (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.04-2.72), while pLFLG (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.72-1.35) had a statistically similar incidence of MACE at a median follow-up of 1-year. TAVR in LFLG also had a significantly higher need for surgery (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.24-10.32), and a greater risk of periprocedural (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.17-3.41), 1-month (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.08-2.64), and 12-month (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.88) mortality compared with HGAS. The incidence of MI, major bleeding, vascular complications, paravalvular leak, pacemaker implantation, and rehospitalizations was not significantly different between all other types of AS (HGAS vs LFLG, pLFLG).ConclusionsTAVR is an effective strategy in severe AS irrespective of the hemodynamic subtypes. Relatively, pLFLG did not have significantly different risk of periprocedural complications compared with HGAS, while classical LFLG AS had higher risk of MACE, primarily driven by the greater mortality risk.

Project description:Background In the absence of randomized controlled trials, reports from nonrandomized studies comparing valve-in-valve implantation (ViV) to redo surgical aortic valve replacement (rAVR) have shown inconsistent results. Methods and Results PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched through December 2021. Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines were followed. The protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Random effects models were applied. The primary outcomes of interest were short-term and midterm mortality. Secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, acute renal failure, and permanent pacemaker implantation, as well as prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation, mean transvalvular gradient, and severe prosthesis-patient mismatch. Of 8881 patients included in 15 studies, 4458 (50.2%) underwent ViV and 4423 (49.8%) rAVR. Short-term mortality was 2.8% in patients undergoing ViV compared with 5.0% in patients undergoing rAVR (risk ratio [RR] 0.55 [95% CI, 0.34-0.91], P=0.02). Midterm mortality did not differ in patients undergoing ViV compared with patients undergoing rAVR (hazard ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.72-2.25]). The rate of acute kidney failure was lower following ViV, (RR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.33-0.88], P=0.02), whereas prosthetic aortic valve regurgitation (RR, 4.18 [95% CI, 1.88-9.3], P=0.003) as well as severe patient-prothesis mismatch (RR, 3.12 [95% CI, 2.35-4.1], P<0.001) occurred more frequently. The mean transvalvular gradient was higher following ViV (standard mean difference, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.15-0.72], P=0.008). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to stroke (P=0.26), myocardial infarction (P=0.93), or pacemaker implantation (P=0.21). Conclusions Results of this meta-analysis demonstrate better short-term mortality after ViV compared with rAVR. Midterm mortality was similar between groups. Given the likely selection bias in these individual reports, an adequately powered multicenter randomized clinical trial with sufficiently long follow-up in patients with low-to-intermediate surgical risk is warranted. Registration URL: crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42021228752.

Dataset Information

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets