BMC Cardiovascular Disorders (Aug 2017)

Efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis patients at low to moderate surgical risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis

  • Ahmed Elmaraezy,
  • Ammar Ismail,
  • Abdelrahman Ibrahim Abushouk,
  • Moutaz Eltoomy,
  • Soha Saad,
  • Ahmed Negida,
  • Osama Mahmoud Abdelaty,
  • Ahmed Ramadan Abdallah,
  • Ahmed Magdy Aboelfotoh,
  • Hossam Mahmoud Hassan,
  • Aya Gamal Elmaraezy,
  • Mahmoud Morsi,
  • Farah Althaher,
  • Moath Althaher,
  • Ammar M. AlSafadi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-017-0668-1
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become the procedure of choice in high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (AS). However, its value is still debated in operable AS cases. We performed this meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of TAVR to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-to-moderate surgical risk patients with AS. Methods A systematic search of five authentic databases retrieved 11 eligible studies (20,056 patients). Relevant Data were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) or standardized mean differences (SMD), with their 95% confidence interval, using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis and RevMan software for windows. Results At one-year of follow-up, the pooled effect-estimates showed no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR groups in terms of all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI [0.83, 1.26], stroke (RR 0.83, 95%CI [0.56, 1.21]), myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI [0.57, 1.19]), and length of hospital stay (SMD -0.04, 95% CI [−0.34, 0.26]). The incidence of major bleeding (RR 0.45, 95% CI [0.24, 0.86]) and acute kidney injury (RR 0.52, 95% CI [0.30, 0.88]) was significantly lower in the TAVR group, compared to the SAVR group. However, TAVR was associated with a higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (RR 2.57, 95% CI [1.36, 4.86]), vascular-access complications at 1 year (RR 1.99, 95%CI [1.04, 3.80]), and paravalvular aortic regurgitation at 30 days (RR 3.90, 95% CI [1.25, 12.12]), compared to SAVR. Conclusions Due to the comparable mortality rates in SAVR and TAVR groups and the lower risk of life-threatening complications in the TAVR group, TAVR can be an acceptable alternative to SAVR in low-to-moderate risk patients with AS. However, larger trials with longer follow-up periods are required to compare the long-term outcomes of both techniques.

Keywords