Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low and intermediate risk: A risk specific meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials


Autoři: Fang Fang aff001;  Jingjing Tang aff002;  Yaqin Zhao aff001;  Jialing He aff001;  Ping Xu aff003;  Andrew Faramand aff004
Působiště autorů: West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China aff001;  The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China aff002;  Sichuan University Library, Chengdu, Sichuan, China aff003;  University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221922

Souhrn

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an option for treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high risk for death with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). It is unknown whether TAVI can be safely introduced to intermediate- and low-risk patients.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of TAVI and SAVR in patients with intermediate- and low-surgical risk.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to April 15, 2019.

Study selection

We included randomized controlled trials comparing TAVI with SAVR in patients with intermediate- and low-surgical risk.

Data extraction

Meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models to calculate risk ratios (RR) with corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Two independent reviewers completed citation screening, data abstraction, and risk assessment. Primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 12 months.

Data Synthesis

A total of 5 trials randomizing 6390 patients were included. In patients with low risk, TAVI was associated with a significant reduction in the composite of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke compared with SAVR (RR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.40–0.79; I2 = 0%). This benefit was not replicated in patients with intermediate risk (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80–1.15; I2 = 0%). Similar results were seen separately in all-cause mortality and disabling stroke when TAVI was compared with SAVR.

Conclusion

For patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low risk for death from surgery, TAVI achieved superior clinical outcomes compared to SAVR; however, these benefits were not seen in those with intermediate risk. This information may inform discussions about deciding between SAVR and TAVI for patients with low to intermediate risk separately.

Klíčová slova:

Death rates – Randomized controlled trials – Stenosis – Surgical and invasive medical procedures – Aortic valve – Aortic valve replacement – Research reporting guidelines


Zdroje

1. Holmes DR Jr., Mack MJ, Kaul S, Agnihotri A, Alexander KP, Bailey SR, et al. 2012 ACCF/AATS/SCAI/STS expert consensus document on transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2012;59(13):1200–54. Epub 2012/02/04. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.01.001 22300974.

2. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Erwin JP, 3rd, Fleisher LA, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2017;135(25):e1159–e95. Epub 2017/03/17. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000503 28298458.

3. Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR, Herrmann HC, Williams M, Babaliaros V, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet (London, England). 2016;387(10034):2218–25. Epub 2016/04/08. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30073-3 27053442.

4. Siordia JA Jr., Loera JM, Scanlon M, Evans J, Knight PA. Three-Year Survival Comparison Between Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Intermediate- and Low-Risk Patients. Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa). 2018;13(3):153–62. Epub 2018/06/19. doi: 10.1097/imi.0000000000000507 29912140.

5. Gargiulo G, Sannino A, Capodanno D, Barbanti M, Buccheri S, Perrino C, et al. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Annals of internal medicine. 2016;165(5):334–44. Epub 2016/06/09. doi: 10.7326/M16-0060 27272666.

6. Siemieniuk RA, Agoritsas T, Manja V, Devji T, Chang Y, Bala MM, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2016;354:i5130. Epub 2016/09/30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5130 27683246; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5040923 www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

7. Siontis GC, Praz F, Pilgrim T, Mavridis D, Verma S, Salanti G, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. European heart journal. 2016;37(47):3503–12. Epub 2016/07/09. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehw225 27389906.

8. Tarantini G, Nai Fovino L, Gersh BJ. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in lower-risk patients: what is the perspective? European heart journal. 2018;39(8):658–66. Epub 2017/10/12. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx489 29020347.

9. Serruys PW, Modolo R, Reardon M, Miyazaki Y, Windecker S, Popma J, et al. One-year outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis and an STS PROM of less than three percent in the SURTAVI trial. EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology. 2018;14(8):877–83. Epub 2018/07/12. doi: 10.4244/eij-d-18-00460 29992904.

10. Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, Makkar R, Kodali SK, Russo M, et al. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Low-Risk Patients. The New England journal of medicine. 2019. Epub 2019/03/19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052 30883058.

11. Popma JJ, Deeb GM, Yakubov SJ, Mumtaz M, Gada H, O'Hair D, et al. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients. The New England journal of medicine. 2019. Epub 2019/03/19. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885 30883053.

12. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2015;349:g7647. Epub 2015/01/04. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647 25555855.

13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of internal medicine. 2009;151(4):W65–94. Epub 2009/07/23. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 19622512.

14. Shinichi A. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Online Kensaku. 2014;35(3):154–5. 99926095.

15. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2008;336(7650):924–6. Epub 2008/04/26. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD 18436948; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2335261.

16. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1997;315(7109):629–34. Epub 1997/10/06. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 9310563; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2127453.

17. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58. Epub 2002/07/12. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186 12111919.

18. Thyregod HG, Steinbruchel DA, Ihlemann N, Nissen H, Kjeldsen BJ, Petursson P, et al. Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: 1-Year Results From the All-Comers NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2015;65(20):2184–94. Epub 2015/03/20. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.03.014 25787196.

19. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, et al. Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. The New England journal of medicine. 2016;374(17):1609–20. Epub 2016/04/05. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514616 27040324.

20. Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, Kleiman NS, Sondergaard L, Mumtaz M, et al. Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients. The New England journal of medicine. 2017;376(14):1321–31. Epub 2017/03/18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1700456 28304219.

21. Kheiri B, Osman M, Abubakar H, Subahi A, Chahine A, Ahmed S, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk surgical patients: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Cardiovascular revascularization medicine: including molecular interventions. 2019. Epub 2019/01/15. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.12.023 30638890.

22. Lazkani M, Singh N, Howe C, Patel N, Colon MJ, Tasset M, et al. An updated meta-analysis of TAVR in patients at intermediate risk for SAVR. Cardiovascular revascularization medicine: including molecular interventions. 2019;20(1):57–69. Epub 2018/05/12. doi: 10.1016/j.carrev.2018.04.001 29748086.

23. Haussig S, Linke A. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement indications should be expanded to lower-risk and younger patients. Circulation. 2014;130(25):2321–31. Epub 2014/12/30. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.008144 25539520.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 9
Nejčtenější tento týden