Clinical cardiology · 2025
Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Implications of TAVR in Patients With Active Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализОбзорНазвание 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.
Saberian Parsa, Contreras Rafael, Gurram Anoop, Nasrollahizadeh Amir, Keetha Narsimha Rao, Nguyen Anthony Loc, Nayak Sandeep Samethadka, Keivanlou Mohammad-Hossein, Hashemi Mohammad, Amini-Salehi Ehsan, Ameen Daniyal
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of TAVR in patients with active cancer remain uncertain. This meta-analysis evaluates procedural success, complications, and survival outcomes of TAVR in patients with and without active cancer.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 18.0.
RESULTS: The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between cancer and non-cancer patients (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.65; p = 0.27). Similarly, 30-day mortality did not differ between the two groups (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.19; p = 0.49). However, 1-year mortality was significantly higher in cancer patients (OR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.45, 2.56; p < 0.01). Two-year mortality was also higher in cancer patients (OR = 2.65; 95% CI: 1.79, 3.93; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in major bleeding, acute kidney injury, stroke, or permanent pacemaker implantation between the groups.
CONCLUSION: While TAVR offers comparable in-hospital and short-term survival outcomes for cancer and non-cancer patients, long-term mortality is significantly higher in those with active cancer. These findings suggest that TAVR is a viable option for cancer patients with severe AS but requires careful long-term prognostic considerations. Further studies are needed to optimize management strategies for this complex population.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 18.0.
RESULTS: The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between cancer and non-cancer patients (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.65; p = 0.27). Similarly, 30-day mortality did not differ between the two groups (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.19; p = 0.49). However, 1-year mortality was significantly higher in cancer patients (OR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.45, 2.56; p < 0.01). Two-year mortality was also higher in cancer patients (OR = 2.65; 95% CI: 1.79, 3.93; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in major bleeding, acute kidney injury, stroke, or permanent pacemaker implantation between the groups.
CONCLUSION: While TAVR offers comparable in-hospital and short-term survival outcomes for cancer and non-cancer patients, long-term mortality is significantly higher in those with active cancer. These findings suggest that TAVR is a viable option for cancer patients with severe AS but requires careful long-term prognostic considerations. Further studies are needed to optimize management strategies for this complex population.