European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2022
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in mixed aortic valve disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Guddeti Raviteja R, Gill Gauravpal S, Garcia-Garcia Hector M, Alla Venkata Mahesh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Utilization of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has expanded from high-risk patients to intermediate- and select low-risk candidates with severe aortic stenosis (AS). TAVR is currently not indicated for patients with aortic insufficiency, and its outcomes in mixed aortic valve disease (MAVD) are unclear.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, CINHAL, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies comparing TAVR outcomes in patients with AS vs. MAVD. Primary outcomes included 30-day and late all-cause mortality, and paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, vascular complications, device implantation success, permanent pacemaker, and stroke. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Der Simonian-Laird random-effects model.
RESULTS: Six observational studies with 58 879 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality [OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.15); P = 0.63], however, MAVD group had higher odds of moderate-to-severe PVR [1.81 (1.41-2.31); P < 0.01]. MAVD patients had lower odds of device implantation success [0.60 (0.40-0.91); P = 0.02] while other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: TAVR in MAVD is associated with increased odds of paravalvular regurgitation and lower odds of device implantation success when compared to severe aortic stenosis.
METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, CINHAL, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies comparing TAVR outcomes in patients with AS vs. MAVD. Primary outcomes included 30-day and late all-cause mortality, and paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding, vascular complications, device implantation success, permanent pacemaker, and stroke. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Der Simonian-Laird random-effects model.
RESULTS: Six observational studies with 58 879 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in 30-day all-cause mortality [OR 1.03 (95% CI 0.92-1.15); P = 0.63], however, MAVD group had higher odds of moderate-to-severe PVR [1.81 (1.41-2.31); P < 0.01]. MAVD patients had lower odds of device implantation success [0.60 (0.40-0.91); P = 0.02] while other secondary outcomes were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: TAVR in MAVD is associated with increased odds of paravalvular regurgitation and lower odds of device implantation success when compared to severe aortic stenosis.