nach oben

Erschienen in:

27.04.2017 | Original articles

Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement and medical treatment

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials

verfasst von: A. Ak, I. Porokhovnikov, F. Kuethe, P. C. Schulze, M. Noutsias, Prof. Dr. P. Schlattmann

Erschienen in: Herz | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as the procedure of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high perioperative risk. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the mortality related to TAVR with medical therapy (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted by two independent investigators from the database inception to 30 December 2014. Relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were calculated and graphically displayed in forest plots. We used I ² for heterogeneity (meta-regression) and Egger’s regression test of asymmetry (funnel plots).

Results

We included 24 studies (n = 19 observational studies; n = 5 randomized controlled trials), with a total of 7356 patients in this meta-analysis. Mean age had a substantial negative impact on the long-term survival of AS patients (OR = 1.544; 95% CI: 1.25–1.90). Compared with MT, TAVR showed a statistically significant benefit for all-cause mortality at 12 months (OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49–0.95). Both TAVR and SAVR were associated with better outcomes compared with MT. TAVR showed lower all-cause mortality over SAVR at 12 months (OR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68–0.97). The comparison between SAVR and TAVR at 2 years revealed no significant difference (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01–1.17).

Conclusion

In AS, both TAVR and SAVR provide a superior prognosis to MT and, therefore, MT is not the preferred treatment option for AS. Furthermore, our data show that TAVR is associated with lower mortality at 12 months compared with SAVR. Further studies are warranted to compare the long-term outcome of TAVR versus SAVR beyond a 2-year follow-up period.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Iung B, Vahanian A (2011) Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in the adult. Nat Rev Cardiol 8(3):162–172CrossRefPubMed

Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG et al (2003) A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J 24(13):1231–1243CrossRefPubMed

Schwarz F, Baumann P, Manthey J et al (1982) The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation 66(5):1105–1110CrossRefPubMed

Panayiotides IM, Nikolaides E (2014) Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): is it time for this intervention to be applied in a lower risk population? Clin Med Insights Cardiol 8:93–102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kolh P, Lahaye L, Gerard P, Limet R (1999) Aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians: perioperative outcome and clinical follow-up. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 16(1):68–73CrossRefPubMed

Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A et al (2002) Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation 106(24):3006–3008CrossRefPubMed

Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M et al (2010) Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 363(17):1597–1607CrossRefPubMed

Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ et al (2011) Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 364(23):2187–2198CrossRefPubMed

Nagaraja V, Raval J, Eslick GD, Ong AT (2014) Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised trials. Open Heart 1(1):e000013CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Cao C, Ang SC, Indraratna P et al (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2(1):10–23PubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A et al (2006) Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ 332(7535):202–209CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188CrossRefPubMed

14.

Song F, Sheldon TA, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR (2001) Methods for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Eval Health Prof 24(2):126–151CrossRefPubMed

15.

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

meta:General Package for Meta-Analysis.R package version 4.1-0 [http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=meta]. Accessed 20.01.2013

17.

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [http://www.R-project.org/]. Accessed 20.01.2013

18.

Pilgrim T, Englberger L, Rothenbuhler M et al (2015) Long-term outcome of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis as a function of treatment modality. Heart 101(1):30–36CrossRefPubMed

19.

Im E, Hong MK, Ko YG et al (2013) Comparison of early clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement versus optimal medical therapy in patients older than 80 years with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Yonsei Med J 54(3):596–602CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Nuis RJ, Dager AE, van der Boon RM et al (2012) Patients with aortic stenosis referred for TAVI: treatment decision, in-hospital outcome and determinants of survival. Neth Heart J 20(1):16–23CrossRefPubMed

21.

Ben-Dor I, Dvir D, Barbash IM et al (2012) Outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk evaluated in a trial of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 110(7):1008–1014CrossRefPubMed

22.

Rajani R, Buxton W, Haworth P et al (2010) Prognostic benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with medical therapy in patients with inoperable aortic stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 75(7):1121–1126PubMed

23.

Dewey TM, Brown DL, Das TS et al (2008) High-risk patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: management and outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 86(5):1450–1456 (discussion 1456–1457)CrossRefPubMed

24.

Dvir D, Waksman R, Barbash IM et al (2014) Outcomes of patients with chronic lung disease and severe aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement or standard therapy: insights from the PARTNER trial (placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve). J Am Coll Cardiol 63(3):269–279CrossRefPubMed

25.

Dubois C, Coosemans M, Rega F et al (2013) Prospective evaluation of clinical outcomes in all-comer high-risk patients with aortic valve stenosis undergoing medical treatment, transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation following heart team assessment. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 17(3):492–500CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Wenaweser P, Pilgrim T, Kadner A et al (2011) Clinical outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk according to treatment modality. J Am Coll Cardiol 58(21):2151–2162CrossRefPubMed

27.

Dvir D, Sagie A, Porat E et al (2013) Clinical profile and outcome of patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk: single-center prospective evaluation according to treatment assignment. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 81(5):871–881CrossRefPubMed

28.

Yu WS, Chang BC, Joo HC, Ko YG, Lee S (2013) Comparison of early clinical results of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in symptomatic high risk severe aortic stenosis patients. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 46(5):346–352CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR et al (2012) Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 366(18):1686–1695CrossRefPubMed

30.

Tamburino C, Barbanti M, Capodanno D et al (2012) Comparison of complications and outcomes to one year of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 109(10):1487–1493CrossRefPubMed

31.

Greason KL, Mathew V, Suri RM et al (2014) Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft operation: a PARTNER trial subgroup analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 98(1):1–7 (discussion 7–8)CrossRefPubMed

32.

Conradi L, Seiffert M, Treede H et al (2012) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis in patients at high surgical risk. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 143(1):64–71CrossRefPubMed

33.

D’Errigo P, Barbanti M, Ranucci M et al (2013) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: results from an intermediate risk propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT study. Int J Cardiol 167(5):1945–1952CrossRefPubMed

34.

Piazza N, Kalesan B, van Mieghem N et al (2013) A 3‑center comparison of 1‑year mortality outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement on the basis of propensity score matching among intermediate-risk surgical patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6(5):443–451CrossRefPubMed

35.

Latib A, Maisano F, Bertoldi L et al (2012) Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-surgical-risk patients with aortic stenosis: a propensity score-matched case-control study. Am Heart J 164(6):910–917CrossRefPubMed

36.

Amonn K, Stortecky S, Brinks H et al (2013) Quality of life in high-risk patients: comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 43(1):34–41 (discussion 41–32)CrossRefPubMed

37.

Wilbring M, Tugtekin SM, Alexiou K et al (2013) Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs conventional aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with previous cardiac surgery: a propensity-score analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 44(1):42–47CrossRefPubMed

38.

Muneretto C, Bisleri G, Moggi A et al (2015) Treating the patients in the ‘grey-zone’ with aortic valve disease: a comparison among conventional surgery, sutureless valves and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 20(1):90–95CrossRefPubMed

39.

McCarthy FH, Desai ND, Herrmann HC et al (2014) Aortic and mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched patients. Ann Thorac Surg 98(4):1267–1273CrossRefPubMed

40.

Nielsen HH, Klaaborg KE, Nissen H et al (2012) A prospective, randomised trial of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in operable elderly patients with aortic stenosis: the STACCATO trial. EuroIntervention 8(3):383–389CrossRefPubMed

41.

Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ (2014) Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med 371(10):967–968CrossRefPubMed

42.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336–341CrossRefPubMed

43.

Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C et al (2006) ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 114(5):e84–e231CrossRefPubMed

44.

Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K et al (2008) 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 52(13):e1–e142CrossRefPubMed

45.

Cribier A, Savin T, Saoudi N, Rocha P, Berland J, Letac B (1986) Percutaneous transluminal valvuloplasty of acquired aortic stenosis in elderly patients: an alternative to valve replacement? Lancet 1(8472):63–67CrossRefPubMed

46.

Serruys PW, Luijten HE, Beatt KJ et al (1988) Percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty for calcific aortic stenosis. A treatment ‘sine cure’? Eur Heart J 9(7):782–794CrossRefPubMed

47.

Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Al-Attar N et al (2008) Transcatheter valve implantation for patients with aortic stenosis: a position statement from the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in collaboration with the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 29(11):1463–1470CrossRefPubMed

48.

Biondi-Zoccai G, Peruzzi M, Abbate A et al (2014) Network meta-analysis on the comparative effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve or Sapien devices versus surgical replacement. Heart Lung Vessel 6(4):232–243PubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Kondur A, Briasoulis A, Palla M et al (2016) Meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol 117(2):252–257CrossRefPubMed

50.

Kische S, D’Ancona G, Agma HU et al (2016) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in obese patients: overcoming technical challenges and maintaining adequate hemodynamic performance using new generation prostheses. Int J Cardiol 220:909–913CrossRefPubMed

51.

Naber CK, Pyxaras SA, Ince H et al (2016) Real-world multicentre experience with the Direct Flow Medical repositionable and retrievable transcatheter aortic valve implantation system for the treatment of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. EuroIntervention 11(11):e1314–e1320CrossRefPubMed

52.

Ando T, Briasoulis A, Holmes AA, Taub CC, Takagi H, Afonso L (2016) Sapien 3 versus Sapien XT prosthetic valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 220:472–478CrossRefPubMed

53.

Panagiotou OA (2015) Network meta-analysis: evidence synthesis with mixed treatment comparison. Am J Epidemiol. doi:10.1093/aje/kwu471PubMedCrossRef

54.

Brockwell SE, Gordon IR (2001) A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Med 20(6):825–840CrossRefPubMed

55.

Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J (2006) Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods 11(2):193–206CrossRefPubMed

56.

Pilgrim T, Windecker S (2014) Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Heart 100(22):1750–1756CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement and medical treatment
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials
verfasst von: A. Ak
I. Porokhovnikov
F. Kuethe
P. C. Schulze
M. Noutsias
Prof. Dr. P. Schlattmann
Publikationsdatum: 27.04.2017
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Erschienen in: Herz / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0340-9937
Elektronische ISSN: 1615-6692
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00059-017-4562-5

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

15.04.2024 | ACC 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Update Kardiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement and medical treatment

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

Verbesserung der HDL-Funktion als Lipidtherapie floppt in Mega-Studie

Blutdrucksenkung per Spritze additiv zur Standardtherapie wirksam

Lässt sich die diabetische Kardiomyopathie aufhalten?

Olezarsen halbiert Triglyzeridwerte

Update Kardiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

Efficacy of RADPAD protective drape during coronary angiography

Chronische Hypoxie – das sind die kardiovaskulären Folgen

CME: Kraftfahreignung bei Herzerkrankungen

Cerebral dopamine neurotrophic factor protects H9c2 cardiomyocytes from apoptosis

Telemonitoring bei Herzinsuffizienz – aktueller Stand

Prognosis of patients with implanted pacemakers in 4‑year follow-up

Neu im Fachgebiet Kardiologie

Verbesserung der HDL-Funktion als Lipidtherapie floppt in Mega-Studie

Blutdrucksenkung per Spritze additiv zur Standardtherapie wirksam

Lässt sich die diabetische Kardiomyopathie aufhalten?

Olezarsen halbiert Triglyzeridwerte

Update Kardiologie