Minerva cardiology and angiology · 2025
Management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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.
Johnson Nicholas, Anil Shoomena, Craig Neil J, Shah Benoy N, Ring Liam, Tsampasian Vasiliki, Vassiliou Vassilios S
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Whilst aortic stenosis remains the most prevalent valvular abnormality, the management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis remains a clinical challenge. Recently, two randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) - EVOLVED (Early Intervention in Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis and Myocardial Fibrosis) and Early TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement for Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) - have been published, alongside an extended follow-up from the AVATAR (Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) study.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: In response, we conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases, identifying RCTs up to October 29, 2024, that compared early intervention with conventional management.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria, with a combined total of 1427 patients across the trials. Meta-analysis of the primary endpoints across these studies demonstrated a benefit with early intervention (HR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.73). However, we did not find mortality and cardiac mortality to show significant reductions (HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.40-1.18 and HR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.33-1.29, respectively). Crucially, stroke outcomes were improved with early intervention (HR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.38-0.95), as were unplanned hospitalizations (HR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30-0.53).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the safety of early intervention and suggest a reduction in stroke incidence, although no significant benefits were observed in overall or cardiac mortality; results which can help to guide shared decision-making with patients and prevent adverse health outcomes.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: In response, we conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases, identifying RCTs up to October 29, 2024, that compared early intervention with conventional management.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria, with a combined total of 1427 patients across the trials. Meta-analysis of the primary endpoints across these studies demonstrated a benefit with early intervention (HR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.73). However, we did not find mortality and cardiac mortality to show significant reductions (HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.40-1.18 and HR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.33-1.29, respectively). Crucially, stroke outcomes were improved with early intervention (HR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.38-0.95), as were unplanned hospitalizations (HR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30-0.53).
CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the safety of early intervention and suggest a reduction in stroke incidence, although no significant benefits were observed in overall or cardiac mortality; results which can help to guide shared decision-making with patients and prevent adverse health outcomes.