General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2024
Incidence of aortic valve reintervention in patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized studies.
Систематический обзорСтатьяМетаанализНазвание 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.
Groberio Julia Goese, Reginato Pedro Henrique, Streit Rafael Eduardo, Rocha Alice Volpato, Udoma-Udofa Ofonime Chantal, de Mesquita Cynthia Florêncio, Rivera André, Ulbrich Anderson Zampier, Farias Fábio Rocha, Gomes Wilton Francisco
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established interventions for alleviating symptoms and enhancing survival in individuals with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the long-term outcomes and incidence of reintervention associated with TAVI and SAVR remain uncertain.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the incidence of reintervention in TAVI versus SAVR. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included, with 5144 (50.9%) patients randomized to TAVI. Compared with SAVR, TAVI increased reinterventions (RR 1.89; 95% CI 1.29-2.76; p < 0.01) and the need for pacemakers (RR 1.91; 95% CI 1.49-2.45; p < 0.01). In addition, TAVI significantly reduced the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32- 0.59; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.92-1.16; p = 0.55), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.94-1.17; p = 0.44), stroke (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.80-1.17; p = 0.76), endocarditis (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.70-1.33; p = 0.82), and myocardial infarction (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.79-1.41; p = 0.72) between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS, TAVI significantly increased the incidence of reinterventions and the need for pacemakers as compared with SAVR.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the incidence of reintervention in TAVI versus SAVR. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled with a random-effects model. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Nine RCTs were included, with 5144 (50.9%) patients randomized to TAVI. Compared with SAVR, TAVI increased reinterventions (RR 1.89; 95% CI 1.29-2.76; p < 0.01) and the need for pacemakers (RR 1.91; 95% CI 1.49-2.45; p < 0.01). In addition, TAVI significantly reduced the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.32- 0.59; p < 0.01). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.92-1.16; p = 0.55), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.94-1.17; p = 0.44), stroke (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.80-1.17; p = 0.76), endocarditis (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.70-1.33; p = 0.82), and myocardial infarction (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.79-1.41; p = 0.72) between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe AS, TAVI significantly increased the incidence of reinterventions and the need for pacemakers as compared with SAVR.