摘要
Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement(TAVR)for the treatment symptomatic severe aortic stenosis(AS)is indicated in patients with intermediate or higher surgical risk.Latest trials showed TAVR,and surgical aortic valve replacement(SAVR)perform similarly at 1-year for the composite outcomes of mortality,stroke and rehospitalization.We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare individual outcomes at 1-year for TAVR compared to SAVR in low-risk patients.Methods Pub Med,Embase,and Cochrane central were searched for all the randomized controlled trials(RCTs)that reported 1-year comparative outcomes of TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement(SAVR).Our conclusions are based upon the random-effects model using Der Simonian-Laird estimator.Results Data from 4 trials and 2887 randomized patients showed that TAVR had lower rates of all-cause mortality,cardiovascular mortality,and atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR at 1-year follow-up(P<0.05 for all).Also,TAVR was also associated with a significantly higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation and moderate-severe paravalvular leak(P<0.05).Conclusions The latest randomised trial data demonstrates that in short-term,TAVR is safe and effective in reducing all-cause mortality or stroke.Longer follow-up of RCTs is needed to determine the durability of clinical benefits in TAVR over SAVR in low-risk patients.
Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement(TAVR) for the treatment symptomatic severe aortic stenosis(AS) is indicated in patients with intermediate or higher surgical risk. Latest trials showed TAVR, and surgical aortic valve replacement(SAVR) perform similarly at 1-year for the composite outcomes of mortality, stroke and rehospitalization. We performed a comprehensive meta-analysis to compare individual outcomes at 1-year for TAVR compared to SAVR in low-risk patients. Methods Pub Med, Embase, and Cochrane central were searched for all the randomized controlled trials(RCTs) that reported 1-year comparative outcomes of TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement(SAVR). Our conclusions are based upon the random-effects model using Der Simonian-Laird estimator. Results Data from 4 trials and 2887 randomized patients showed that TAVR had lower rates of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR at 1-year follow-up(P < 0.05 for all). Also, TAVR was also associated with a significantly higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation and moderate-severe paravalvular leak(P < 0.05). Conclusions The latest randomised trial data demonstrates that in short-term, TAVR is safe and effective in reducing all-cause mortality or stroke. Longer follow-up of RCTs is needed to determine the durability of clinical benefits in TAVR over SAVR in low-risk patients.
