Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Lower-Surgical-Risk Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Comparison of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Devices in Aortic Stenosis: A Network Meta-Analysis of 42,105 Patients

Background: In recent years, trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an excellent alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Currently, there are several approved devices on the market, yet comparisons among them are scarce. We aimed to compare the various devices via a network meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched studies that provide comparisons of either a single TAVI with SAVR or two different TAVI devices and report clinical outcomes. Results: We included 12 RCT and 13 propensity-matched studies comprising 42,105 patients, among whom 27,134 underwent TAVI using various valve systems (Sapien & Sapien XT, Sapien 3, Corvalve, Evolut & Evolut Pro, Acurate Neo, Portico). The mean follow-up time was 23.4 months. Sapien 3 was superior over SAVR in the reduction of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.53; 95%CrI 0.31–0.91), while no significant difference existed between other devices and SAVR. Aortic regurgitation was more frequent among TAVI devices compared to SAVR. There was no significant difference between the various THVs and SAVR in cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, NYHA class III-IV, and endocarditis. Conclusions: Newer generation TAVI devices, especially Sapien 3 and Evolut R/Pro are associated with improved outcomes compared to SAVR and other devices of the older generation.

The International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery Expert Consensus Statement on Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Propensity-Matched Studies

OBJECTIVE

There is an increasing amount of evidence supporting use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at low or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR is now approved for use in all patient cohorts. Despite this, there remains debate about the relative efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR in lower-risk cohorts and various subgroups of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched trials to guide a consensus among expert cardiologists and surgeons.

METHODS

Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a thorough search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year.

RESULTS

Early mortality was lower in TAVR compared to SAVR in RCTs, but not propensity-matched studies in low-risk cohorts (0.66% vs 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.98, I² = 0%). No difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR was identified in intermediate-risk patients at early or later time points. Incidence of perioperative stroke in 3 low-risk RCTs was significantly lower in TAVR (0.4%) than SAVR (1.4%; OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, I² = 0%). There was no difference in stroke for intermediate-risk patients between TAVR and SAVR. The expert panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons provided recommendations for TAVR and SAVR in various clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

In RCTs comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients, early mortality and stroke were lower in TAVR, but did not differ at 1 year. There was no difference in mortality and stroke in intermediate-risk patients. The Multidisciplinary Heart Team must consider individual patient characteristics and preferences when recommending TAVR or SAVR. The decision must consider the long-term management of each patient's aortic valve disease.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Although a number of studies compared mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with that after surgical aortic replacement (SAVR) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), no meta-analysis of them has been conducted to date. To determine whether TAVI or SAVR is associated with better postprocedural survival in patients with COPD, a meta-analysis of all studies currently available was performed. Design. To identify all comparative studies of TAVI with SAVR in patients with COPD, PubMed and Web of Science were searched through January 2020. Studies meeting the following criteria were included in the present meta-analysis: the design was an observational comparative study or a randomized controlled trial; the study population was patients with COPD; patients were assigned to TAVI versus SAVR; and outcomes included all-cause mortality. Adjusted (if unavailable, unadjusted) odds or hazard ratios with their confidence intervals (CIs) of mortality for TAVI versus SAVR were extracted from each study. Study-specific estimates were combined in the random-effects model. Results. Six eligible studies with a total of 4771 patients with COPD were identified and included in the present meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated significantly lower early (in-hospital or 30-day) mortality after TAVI than after SAVR (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.90; p = .006) but no significant difference in midterm (1-year to 5-year) mortality between TAVI and SAVR (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.79-1.44; p = .68). Conclusions. In patients with COPD, TAVI was associated with reduced early mortality, while midterm mortality appeared similar, as compared with SAVR.

Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter vs. Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-to-Intermediate-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis

Background: The efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for low- to intermediate-surgical risk patients remains uninvestigated.

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for low-intermediate surgical risk patients.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify potential references. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies using propensity score matching were eligible for screening. The primary endpoint was all-cause death. The secondary outcomes were bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and other complications of aortic-valve replacement. In addition, we performed subgroup analysis based on surgical risk and study type.

Results: Eight RCTs and 13 observational studies covering 12,467 patients were included in the current meta-analysis. For patients with low-surgical risk, compared with SAVR, TAVR was found to be associated with a lower mortality at a follow-up period of 1 year (odds ratio, OR: 0.66, 95% CI: [0.46, 0.96], P = 0.03). This benefit disappeared when the follow-up was extended to 2 years (OR: 0.89, 95% CI: [0.61, 1.30], P = 0.56). For patients with intermediate-surgical risk, TAVR showed to have similar mortality with SAVR regardless of follow-up period (30-day, 1-year, or 2-year). TAVR could reduce the incidence of bleeding, AF, and AKI. For complications, such as MI and stroke, TAVR exhibited to have similar safety with SAVR. However, TAVR was found to be associated with a higher incidence of reintervention, major vascular complication, paravalvular leak, and PPI.

Conclusion: For patients with a low-to-intermediate surgical risk, TAVR has at least an equivalent clinical effect to SAVR for 2 years after the procedure.

Effects of COPD on in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Results from the National Inpatient Sample database

Background

Comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) increases morbidity and mortality among aortic valve replacement patients undergoing conventional surgery. The impact of COPD in patients undergoing less invasive transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) is unclear.

Hypothesis

This study evaluates the in‐hospital outcomes of TAVI in patients with and without COPD.

Methods

This population‐based, retrospective study of 8466 TAVI patients (29.87% with COPD) evaluates the effects of COPD on short‐term clinical outcomes (in‐hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications) using data from the National Inpatient Sample database from 2011 to 2014. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with in‐hospital mortality and postoperative complications. Linear regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with length of hospital stay.

Results

COPD is significantly associated with increased risk of respiratory complications and pneumonia after TAVI (aOR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.24‐1.64; P < .001) but not in‐hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, or non‐respiratory postoperative complications as compared to non‐COPD patients. Concomitant COPD is significantly associated with increased risk of respiratory complications or pneumonia after TAVI but may still be the best treatment option for some patients.

Conclusions

Patients with comorbid COPD who receive TAVI have greater risk of developing postoperative respiratory complications and pneumonia. Vigilance for specific respiratory complications is highly warranted when treating this subgroup. Treatment decisions must be individualized.

Is Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Better Than Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease? A Nationwide Inpatient Sample Analysis

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients are at increased risk of respiratory related complications after cardiac surgery. It is unclear whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in favorable outcomes among COPD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database from 2011 to 2014. Patients with age ≥60, COPD, and either went transarterial TAVR or SAVR were included in the analysis. A 1:1 propensity-matched cohort was created to examine the outcomes. A matched pair of 1210 TAVR and 1208 SAVR patients was identified. Respiratory-related complications such as tracheostomy (0.8% versus 5.8%; odds ratio [OR], 0.14; P<0.001), acute respiratory failure (16.4% versus 23.7%; OR, 0.63; P=0.002), reintubation (6.5% versus 10.0%; OR, 0.49; P<0.001), and pneumonia (4.5% versus 10.1%; OR, 0.41; P<0.001) were significantly less frequent with TAVR versus SAVR. Use of noninvasive mechanical ventilation was similar between TAVR and SAVR (4.1% versus 4.8%; OR, 0.84; P=0.41). Non-respiratory-related complications, such as in-hospital mortality (3.3% versus 4.2%; OR, 0.64; P=0.035), bleeding requiring transfusion (9.9% versus 21.7%; OR, 0.38; P<0.001), acute kidney injury (17.7% versus 25.3%; OR, 0.63; P<0.001), and acute myocardial infarction (2.4% versus 8.4%; OR, 0.19; P<0.001), were significantly less frequent with TAVR than SAVR. Cost ($56 099 versus $63 146; P<0.001) and hospital stay (mean, 7.7 versus 13.0 days; P<0.001) were also more favorable with TAVR than SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR portended significantly fewer respiratory-related complications compared with SAVR in COPD patients. TAVR may be a preferable mode of aortic valve replacement in COPD patients.