The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024
Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis: Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Jacquemyn Xander, Sá Michel Pompeu, Rega Filip, Verbrugghe Peter, Meuris Bart, Serna-Gallegos Derek, Brown James A, Clavel Marie-Annick, Pibarot Philippe, Sultan Ibrahim
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement demonstrate conflicting evidence, particularly in low-risk patients. We aim to reevaluate the evidence using trial sequential analysis, balancing type I and II errors, and compare with conventional meta-analysis.
METHODS: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, which were divided into higher-risk and lower-risk randomized controlled trials according to a pragmatic risk classification. Primary outcomes were death and a composite end point of death or disabling stroke assessed at 1 year and maximum follow-up. Conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed, and the required information size was calculated considering a type I error of 5% and a power of 90%.
RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials (n = 5274 higher-risk and 3661 lower-risk patients) were included. Higher-risk trials showed no significant reduction in death at 1 year with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (relative risk, 0.93, 95% CI, 0.81-1.08, P = .345). Lower-risk trials suggested lower death risk on conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.47-0.96, P = .031), but trial sequential analysis indicated potential spurious evidence (P = .116), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5944 [59.8%]). For death or disabling stroke at 1 year, higher-risk trials lacked evidence (relative risk, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.79-1.02, P = .108). In lower-risk trials, transcatheter aortic valve implantation indicated lower risk in conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.50-0.93, P = .014), but trial sequential analysis suggested potential spurious evidence (P = .053), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5122 [69.4%]). Follow-up results provided inconclusive evidence for both primary outcomes across risk categories.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional meta-analysis methods may have prematurely declared an early reduction of negative outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement.
METHODS: Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, which were divided into higher-risk and lower-risk randomized controlled trials according to a pragmatic risk classification. Primary outcomes were death and a composite end point of death or disabling stroke assessed at 1 year and maximum follow-up. Conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed, and the required information size was calculated considering a type I error of 5% and a power of 90%.
RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials (n = 5274 higher-risk and 3661 lower-risk patients) were included. Higher-risk trials showed no significant reduction in death at 1 year with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (relative risk, 0.93, 95% CI, 0.81-1.08, P = .345). Lower-risk trials suggested lower death risk on conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.47-0.96, P = .031), but trial sequential analysis indicated potential spurious evidence (P = .116), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5944 [59.8%]). For death or disabling stroke at 1 year, higher-risk trials lacked evidence (relative risk, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.79-1.02, P = .108). In lower-risk trials, transcatheter aortic valve implantation indicated lower risk in conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.50-0.93, P = .014), but trial sequential analysis suggested potential spurious evidence (P = .053), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5122 [69.4%]). Follow-up results provided inconclusive evidence for both primary outcomes across risk categories.
CONCLUSIONS: Conventional meta-analysis methods may have prematurely declared an early reduction of negative outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement.