Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026
When Time Matters in Aortic Stenosis: Can Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Make a Difference in Non-Elective Cases?
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Villa Etchegoyen Cecilia, Chollet Laurève, Ahmed Mina, Bilauca Christine, Farina Juan M, Pereyra Milagros, Scalia Isabel G, Razaghi Mahshad, Abdelfattah Fatmaelzahraa E, Awad Kamal, Hafez Abdelrahman, Ahmed Sherif, Ayoub Chadi, Alsidawi Said, Sweeney John P, Lester Steven J, Lee Kwan S, Fortuin David, Sell-Dottin Kristen A, Arsanjani Reza
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The development of symptoms or left ventricular dysfunction in severe aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. While elective transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is supported by robust randomized evidence, data on TAVR performed in non-elective settings (urgent, emergent, or salvage) remain limited and heterogeneous. In these settings, outcomes may be influenced more by baseline clinical severity than by procedural factors. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the safety and effectiveness of non-elective TAVR and to compare the associated outcomes with those of elective TAVR.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with PROSPERO. The PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published after 2002 evaluating urgent, emergent, or salvage TAVR in adult patients with severe AS. Eligible studies were required to include elective TAVR as a comparator. Outcomes included mortality and major procedural complications. Prespecified era-based analyses and sensitivity analyses excluding studies at critical risk of bias were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.
RESULTS: A total of 17 observational studies published between 2015 and 2025 were included, comprising 215,141 patients. Compared with elective patients, those undergoing non-elective TAVR had more advanced heart failure, higher NYHA class, greater comorbidity burden, and higher surgical risk scores, whereas baseline echocardiographic severity of AS was similar. Pooled outcomes for non-elective TAVR showed in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates of 5.1%, 12.4%, and 26.7%, respectively. Non-elective TAVR was associated with higher mortality at all time points compared with elective procedures; meanwhile, rates of stroke, vascular complications, and permanent pacemaker implantation were similar, while major bleeding and acute kidney injury were more frequent. Era-based analyses showed a stable relative mortality risk over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Although non-elective TAVR is associated with worse outcomes than elective procedures, these differences appear to be largely driven by baseline clinical severity rather than by the transcatheter intervention. In unstable patients with severe AS, non-elective TAVR remains the most effective definitive treatment option compared with balloon aortic valvuloplasty or conservative management.
THE PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD420251239620, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251239620.
METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered with PROSPERO. The PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched for studies published after 2002 evaluating urgent, emergent, or salvage TAVR in adult patients with severe AS. Eligible studies were required to include elective TAVR as a comparator. Outcomes included mortality and major procedural complications. Prespecified era-based analyses and sensitivity analyses excluding studies at critical risk of bias were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool.
RESULTS: A total of 17 observational studies published between 2015 and 2025 were included, comprising 215,141 patients. Compared with elective patients, those undergoing non-elective TAVR had more advanced heart failure, higher NYHA class, greater comorbidity burden, and higher surgical risk scores, whereas baseline echocardiographic severity of AS was similar. Pooled outcomes for non-elective TAVR showed in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year mortality rates of 5.1%, 12.4%, and 26.7%, respectively. Non-elective TAVR was associated with higher mortality at all time points compared with elective procedures; meanwhile, rates of stroke, vascular complications, and permanent pacemaker implantation were similar, while major bleeding and acute kidney injury were more frequent. Era-based analyses showed a stable relative mortality risk over time.
CONCLUSIONS: Although non-elective TAVR is associated with worse outcomes than elective procedures, these differences appear to be largely driven by baseline clinical severity rather than by the transcatheter intervention. In unstable patients with severe AS, non-elective TAVR remains the most effective definitive treatment option compared with balloon aortic valvuloplasty or conservative management.
THE PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD420251239620, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251239620.