TY - JOUR
T1 - Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for stenotic bicuspid aortic valve
T2 - Systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Sakurai, Yosuke
AU - Yokoyama, Yujiro
AU - Kuno, Toshiki
AU - Takagi, Hisato
AU - Mentias, Amgad
AU - Thourani, Vinod H.
AU - Latib, Azeem
AU - Kaneko, Tsuyoshi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)
PY - 2023/3
Y1 - 2023/3
N2 - Objectives: Bicuspid aortic valves have been excluded from randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis using a meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through March 2022 to identify observational studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement for severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, vascular complication, permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, blood transfusion, paravalvular leak, and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Results: Four propensity score–matched studies and 54,047 patients (transcatheter aortic valve replacement, n = 3841; surgical aortic valve replacement, n = 50,206) yielding 3142 pairs using propensity score were included. Median follow-up periods were 21 to 24 months. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.20; P = .19) or stroke (risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.14; P = .29). Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with higher risks of permanent pacemaker implantation rate (risk ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.84; P = .0003), transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with lower risks of acute kidney injury (risk ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.88; P = .01) and transfusion (risk ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.29; P = .0001). There were no significant differences in in-hospital vascular complication, paravalvular leak, and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Conclusions: In selected patients with severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, no significant differences in in-hospital mortality or stroke were observed between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. Further investigations with long-term follow-up and morphological features are warranted.
AB - Objectives: Bicuspid aortic valves have been excluded from randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement with surgical aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis using a meta-analysis. Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through March 2022 to identify observational studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement for severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, vascular complication, permanent pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, blood transfusion, paravalvular leak, and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Results: Four propensity score–matched studies and 54,047 patients (transcatheter aortic valve replacement, n = 3841; surgical aortic valve replacement, n = 50,206) yielding 3142 pairs using propensity score were included. Median follow-up periods were 21 to 24 months. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-1.20; P = .19) or stroke (risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.14; P = .29). Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with higher risks of permanent pacemaker implantation rate (risk ratio, 1.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.84; P = .0003), transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with lower risks of acute kidney injury (risk ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.88; P = .01) and transfusion (risk ratio, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-0.29; P = .0001). There were no significant differences in in-hospital vascular complication, paravalvular leak, and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Conclusions: In selected patients with severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis, no significant differences in in-hospital mortality or stroke were observed between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement. Further investigations with long-term follow-up and morphological features are warranted.
KW - bicuspid aortic valve
KW - surgical aortic valve replacement
KW - transcatheter aortic valve replacement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85149847063&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85149847063&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.xjon.2022.11.012
DO - 10.1016/j.xjon.2022.11.012
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85149847063
SN - 2666-2736
VL - 13
SP - 75
EP - 94
JO - JTCVS Open
JF - JTCVS Open
ER -