Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for native aortic valve regurgitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aortic Valve
/ diagnostic imaging
Aortic Valve Insufficiency
/ diagnostic imaging
Female
Heart Valve Prosthesis
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Prosthesis Design
Recovery of Function
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
/ adverse effects
Treatment Outcome
aortic valve insufficiency
heart diseases
heart valve prosthesis
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2019
01 02 2019
Historique:
received:
25
07
2018
accepted:
28
07
2018
pubmed:
1
10
2018
medline:
11
2
2020
entrez:
1
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objective of this study was to analyze the available literature on using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for native aortic regurgitation (AR). Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard therapy for native AR. TAVR has emerged as an alternative approach in high-risk patients. MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for reports of at least 5 patients undergoing TAVR for native AR. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, postprocedural moderate to severe AR, and device success. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and a meta-regression were performed to study the effects of study level covariates on outcomes. Nineteen studies (n =998 patients) were included. The rate of procedural success per Valve Academic Research Consortium - 2 (VARC-2) criteria was 86.2% (78.8%-92.2%]. Thirty-day mortality was 11.9% (9.4%-14.7%). Subgroup analysis showed the use of new generation valves was associated with lower 30-day mortality (P = 0.02) and higher device success (P = 0.009) compared with early generation valves. There was no significant difference (P = 0.13) in the rate of 30-day mortality between patients receiving purpose-specific [8.2% (4.3%-13.1%); I2 = 0%] and nonpurpose specific valves [13.0% (8.2%-18.6%); I2 = 25%]. However, device success was higher (P = 0.02) in patients who received purpose-specific valves [96.3% (92.2%-98.9%); I2 = 0%] compared with nonpurpose specific valves [84.4% (75%-91.9%); I2 =46%]. TAVR for native AR is associated with acceptable procedural success but increased early mortality. However, the safety and the efficacy of the procedure increased with newer valves.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to analyze the available literature on using transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for native aortic regurgitation (AR).
BACKGROUND
Surgical aortic valve replacement is the gold standard therapy for native AR. TAVR has emerged as an alternative approach in high-risk patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for reports of at least 5 patients undergoing TAVR for native AR. Outcomes included 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, postprocedural moderate to severe AR, and device success. Pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis and a meta-regression were performed to study the effects of study level covariates on outcomes.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies (n =998 patients) were included. The rate of procedural success per Valve Academic Research Consortium - 2 (VARC-2) criteria was 86.2% (78.8%-92.2%]. Thirty-day mortality was 11.9% (9.4%-14.7%). Subgroup analysis showed the use of new generation valves was associated with lower 30-day mortality (P = 0.02) and higher device success (P = 0.009) compared with early generation valves. There was no significant difference (P = 0.13) in the rate of 30-day mortality between patients receiving purpose-specific [8.2% (4.3%-13.1%); I2 = 0%] and nonpurpose specific valves [13.0% (8.2%-18.6%); I2 = 25%]. However, device success was higher (P = 0.02) in patients who received purpose-specific valves [96.3% (92.2%-98.9%); I2 = 0%] compared with nonpurpose specific valves [84.4% (75%-91.9%); I2 =46%].
CONCLUSION
TAVR for native AR is associated with acceptable procedural success but increased early mortality. However, the safety and the efficacy of the procedure increased with newer valves.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
345-353Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.