European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2013
Is valve choice a significant determinant of paravalular leak post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation? 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.
O'Sullivan Katie E, Gough Aideen, Segurado Ricardo, Barry Mitchel, Sugrue Declan, Hurley John
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is associated with poor survival. The two main valve delivery systems used to date differ significantly in both structure and deployment technique. The primary objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies identifying PVR in patients post-TAVI using Medtronic CoreValve (MCV) and Edward Sapien (ES) valves in order to identify whether a significant difference exists between valve types. The secondary objective was to identify additional factors predisposing to PVR to provide an overview of the other associated considerations.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature to identify PVR rate in patients with MCV and ES valves was performed. We also sought to examine other factors predisposing to PVR.
RESULTS: A total of 5910 patients were identified from 9 studies. PVR rates for MCV and ES were analysed. MCV was associated with a higher PVR rate of 15.75% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.48-19.32] compared with ES 3.93% [95% CI 1.05-8.38]. We separately reviewed predisposing factors associated with PVR. A formal comparison of the MCV and ES valve leakage rates by mixed-effects meta-regression with a fixed-effect moderator variable for valve type (MCV or ES) suggested a statistically significant difference in leakage rate between the two valve types (P = 0.0002).
CONCLUSIONS: Unfavourable anatomical and pathological factors as well as valve choice have an impact on rates of PVR. Additionally, certain anatomical features dictate valve choice. A direct comparison of all the predisposing factors at this time is not possible and will require prospective multivariate analysis. There is, however, a significant difference in the PVR rates between valves based on the published observational data available to date. The ES valve associated with a lower incidence of PVR overall; therefore, we conclude that valve choice is indeed a significant determinant of PVR post-TAVI.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature to identify PVR rate in patients with MCV and ES valves was performed. We also sought to examine other factors predisposing to PVR.
RESULTS: A total of 5910 patients were identified from 9 studies. PVR rates for MCV and ES were analysed. MCV was associated with a higher PVR rate of 15.75% [95% confidence interval (CI) 12.48-19.32] compared with ES 3.93% [95% CI 1.05-8.38]. We separately reviewed predisposing factors associated with PVR. A formal comparison of the MCV and ES valve leakage rates by mixed-effects meta-regression with a fixed-effect moderator variable for valve type (MCV or ES) suggested a statistically significant difference in leakage rate between the two valve types (P = 0.0002).
CONCLUSIONS: Unfavourable anatomical and pathological factors as well as valve choice have an impact on rates of PVR. Additionally, certain anatomical features dictate valve choice. A direct comparison of all the predisposing factors at this time is not possible and will require prospective multivariate analysis. There is, however, a significant difference in the PVR rates between valves based on the published observational data available to date. The ES valve associated with a lower incidence of PVR overall; therefore, we conclude that valve choice is indeed a significant determinant of PVR post-TAVI.