Current problems in cardiology · 2026
Invasive versus conservative management in infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Theofilis Panagiotis, Dimitriadis Kyriakos, Pyrpyris Nikolaos, Karakasis Paschalis, Dri Eirini, Beneki Eirini, Vordoni Aikaterini, Tsioufis Panagiotis, Chatzi Maria, Oikonomou Evangelos, Aznaouridis Konstantinos, Tsioufis Konstantinos
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Infective endocarditis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI-IE) is an uncommon but severe complication associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Therapeutic strategies vary widely, since invasive management is often precluded by prohibitive risk and conservative medical therapy may be linked to poorer outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes between conservative and invasive management in patients with TAVI-IE.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified comparative studies evaluating conservative versus invasive treatment in TAVI-IE. The primary endpoints were all-cause in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was quantified with I², publication bias was assessed with Egger's test, and sensitivity analyses (leave-one-out, GOSH plots) were performed.
RESULTS: The search yielded 2,551 records; 15 studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction and meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between conservative and invasive strategies for in-hospital mortality (RR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.80-1.24, p = 0.96; I² = 0 % with p = 0.67) or 1-year mortality (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.84-1.26; p = 0.81; I² = 11.4 % with p = 0.33). There was no evidence of publication bias (Egger's test: in-hospital, p = 0.07; 1-year, p = 0.54). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with TAVI-IE, conservative and invasive treatments were associated with comparable in-hospital and 1-year mortality. These findings support individualized, multidisciplinary decision-making rather than presuming a uniform advantage of either approach.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science identified comparative studies evaluating conservative versus invasive treatment in TAVI-IE. The primary endpoints were all-cause in-hospital and 1-year mortality. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was quantified with I², publication bias was assessed with Egger's test, and sensitivity analyses (leave-one-out, GOSH plots) were performed.
RESULTS: The search yielded 2,551 records; 15 studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction and meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between conservative and invasive strategies for in-hospital mortality (RR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.80-1.24, p = 0.96; I² = 0 % with p = 0.67) or 1-year mortality (RR 1.03, 95 % CI 0.84-1.26; p = 0.81; I² = 11.4 % with p = 0.33). There was no evidence of publication bias (Egger's test: in-hospital, p = 0.07; 1-year, p = 0.54). Results were robust in sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with TAVI-IE, conservative and invasive treatments were associated with comparable in-hospital and 1-year mortality. These findings support individualized, multidisciplinary decision-making rather than presuming a uniform advantage of either approach.