Long-term and Temporal Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-analysis
- PMID: 32502078
- DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003906
Long-term and Temporal Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-analysis
Abstract
Objective: To determine the 5-year and temporal performance of TAVR versus SAVR.
Background: TAVR has become a valuable treatment for severe aortic stenosis but the long-term safety and efficacy remain unclear.
Methods: Databases were searched until October 6, 2019 for randomized trials with ≥5 years' follow-up. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled with random-effects models.
Results: We included 4 trials with 3,758 patients. TAVR was associated with a significantly higher 5-year all-cause mortality than SAVR (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03-1.37; P = 0.02). Landmark analysis showed no significant difference within 2 years (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.79-1.08; P = 0.33) but a statistically higher mortality in TAVR between 2 and 5 years (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.52; P = 0.0002), with significant difference between these 2 temporal phases (P for interaction = 0.001). Similar interaction was found for cardiovascular mortality and several other outcomes. Rates of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, permanent pacemaker implantation, aortic-valve rehospitalization, and reintervention were higher, but rates of major bleeding and new-onset fibrillation were lower in TAVR at 5 years. The incidences of myocardial infarction, stroke, and transient ischemic attack were not statistically different between TAVR and SAVR.
Conclusions: TAVR was associated with a significantly higher all-cause mortality at 5 years compared with SAVR. Of note, all-cause mortality presented a characteristic temporal pattern showing increased risk between 2 and 5 years but not within 2 years. Longer-term follow-up data are warranted.
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Comment in
-
Comment on "Patient-tailored Therapy for Aortic Valve Stenosis: Open Questions and Future Directions".Ann Surg. 2021 Dec 1;274(6):e836-e837. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004517. Ann Surg. 2021. PMID: 33201125 No abstract available.
-
Response to the Comment on "Long-term and Temporal Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-analysis".Ann Surg. 2021 Dec 1;274(6):e837-e838. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004516. Ann Surg. 2021. PMID: 33201126 No abstract available.
References
-
- Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2016; 374:1609–1620.
-
- Reardon MJ, Van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2017; 376:1321–1331.
-
- Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR, et al. Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 2012; 366:1686–1695.
-
- Reardon MJ, Adams DH, Kleiman NS, et al. 2-year outcomes in patients undergoing surgical or self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 66:113–121.
-
- Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2017; 135:e1159–e1195.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
