European review for medical and pharmacological sciences · 2019
Meta-analysis of the impact on early and late mortality of TAVI compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in high and low-intermediate surgical risk patients.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sergi D, Acconcia M C, Muscoli S, Perrone M A, Cammalleri V, Di Luozzo M, Marchei M, Giannoni M F, Barillà F, Gaudio C, Chiocchi M, Romeo F, Caretta Q
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We studied the impact of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to the surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) on 30-day and one-year mortality from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high or low-intermediate surgical risk.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All RCTs were retrieved through PubMed computerized database and the site https://www.clinicaltrials.gov from January 2010 until March 31st, 2019. The absolute risk reduction (RD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention under comparison. We evaluated overall mortality rates at 30-day and one-year follow-up in the comparison between TAVI vs. SAVR. We also evaluated the role played by the site access for TAVI performed through the femoral or subclavian artery (TV-TAVI) vs. SAVR, or transapically (TA-TAVI) vs. SAVR.
RESULTS: In the "as-treated population" the overall 30-day mortality was significantly lower in TAVI (p=0.03) with respect to SAVR. However, the analysis for TAVI subgroups showed that 30-day mortality was (1) significantly lower in TV-TAVI vs. SAVR (p=0.006), (2) increased, not significantly, in TA-TAVI vs. SAVR (p=0.62). No significant differences were found between TAVI vs. SAVR at one-year follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our meta-analysis suggest that TV-TAVI is a powerful tool in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis at high or low-intermediate surgical risk, with a significant lower mortality with respect to SAVR. On the contrary, SAVR seems to provide better results than TA-TAVI.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: All RCTs were retrieved through PubMed computerized database and the site https://www.clinicaltrials.gov from January 2010 until March 31st, 2019. The absolute risk reduction (RD) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention under comparison. We evaluated overall mortality rates at 30-day and one-year follow-up in the comparison between TAVI vs. SAVR. We also evaluated the role played by the site access for TAVI performed through the femoral or subclavian artery (TV-TAVI) vs. SAVR, or transapically (TA-TAVI) vs. SAVR.
RESULTS: In the "as-treated population" the overall 30-day mortality was significantly lower in TAVI (p=0.03) with respect to SAVR. However, the analysis for TAVI subgroups showed that 30-day mortality was (1) significantly lower in TV-TAVI vs. SAVR (p=0.006), (2) increased, not significantly, in TA-TAVI vs. SAVR (p=0.62). No significant differences were found between TAVI vs. SAVR at one-year follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our meta-analysis suggest that TV-TAVI is a powerful tool in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis at high or low-intermediate surgical risk, with a significant lower mortality with respect to SAVR. On the contrary, SAVR seems to provide better results than TA-TAVI.