Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in lower-risk and higher-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Cardiac Surgery 2023 Reviewed

We reviewed the cardiac surgical literature for 2023. PubMed displayed almost 34,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2023." We used a PRISMA approach for a results-oriented summary. Key manuscripts addressed the mid- and long-term effects of invasive treatment options in patient populations with coronary artery disease (CAD), comparing interventional therapy (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]). The literature in 2023 again confirmed the excellent long-term outcomes of CABG compared with PCI in patients with left main stenosis, specifically in anatomically complex chronic CAD, but even in elderly patients, generating further support for an infarct-preventative effect as a prognostic mechanism of CABG. For aortic stenosis, a previous trend of an early advantage for transcatheter (transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]) and a later advantage for surgical (surgical aortic valve replacement) treatment was also re-confirmed by many studies. Only the Evolut Low Risk trial maintained an early advantage of TAVI over 4 years. In the mitral and tricuspid field, the number of interventional publications increased tremendously. A pattern emerges that clinical benefits are associated with repair quality, making residual regurgitation not irrelevant. While surgery is more invasive, it currently generates the highest repair rates and longest durability. For terminal heart failure treatment, donor pool expansion for transplantation and reducing adverse events in assist device therapy were issues in 2023. Finally, the aortic diameter related to adverse events and technical aspects of surgery dominated in aortic surgery. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for patient-specific decision-making.

Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who are eligible for both transcatheter aortic-valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR), data are lacking on the appropriate treatment strategy in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

In this randomized noninferiority trial conducted at 38 sites in Germany, we assigned patients with severe aortic stenosis who were at low or intermediate surgical risk to undergo either TAVI or SAVR. Percutaneous- and surgical-valve prostheses were selected according to operator discretion. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause or fatal or nonfatal stroke at 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 1414 patients underwent randomization (701 to the TAVI group and 713 to the SAVR group). The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 74±4 years; 57% were men, and the median Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score was 1.8% (low surgical risk). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of the primary outcome at 1 year was 5.4% in the TAVI group and 10.0% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio for death or stroke, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.79; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The incidence of death from any cause was 2.6% in the TAVI group and 6.2% in the SAVR group (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.73); the incidence of stroke was 2.9% and 4.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.06). Procedural complications occurred in 1.5% and 1.0% of patients in the TAVI and SAVR groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with severe aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to death from any cause or stroke at 1 year. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and the German Heart Foundation; DEDICATE-DZHK6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03112980.).

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic valve stenosis: Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement demonstrate conflicting evidence, particularly in low-risk patients. We aim to reevaluate the evidence using trial sequential analysis, balancing type I and II errors, and compare with conventional meta-analysis.

METHODS

Databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, which were divided into higher-risk and lower-risk randomized controlled trials according to a pragmatic risk classification. Primary outcomes were death and a composite end point of death or disabling stroke assessed at 1 year and maximum follow-up. Conventional meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis were performed, and the required information size was calculated considering a type I error of 5% and a power of 90%.

RESULTS

Eight randomized controlled trials (n = 5274 higher-risk and 3661 lower-risk patients) were included. Higher-risk trials showed no significant reduction in death at 1 year with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (relative risk, 0.93, 95% CI, 0.81-1.08, P = .345). Lower-risk trials suggested lower death risk on conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.67, 95% CI, 0.47-0.96, P = .031), but trial sequential analysis indicated potential spurious evidence (P = .116), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5944 [59.8%]). For death or disabling stroke at 1 year, higher-risk trials lacked evidence (relative risk, 0.90, 95% CI, 0.79-1.02, P = .108). In lower-risk trials, transcatheter aortic valve implantation indicated lower risk in conventional meta-analysis (relative risk, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.50-0.93, P = .014), but trial sequential analysis suggested potential spurious evidence (P = .053), necessitating more data for conclusive benefit (required information size = 5122 [69.4%]). Follow-up results provided inconclusive evidence for both primary outcomes across risk categories.

CONCLUSIONS

Conventional meta-analysis methods may have prematurely declared an early reduction of negative outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement.

Systematic Dental Screening Before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Call to Action!

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVR) offers an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for high-risk patients. Despite its benefits, concerns arise from its association with prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), a severe complication. Recent studies indicate a potential higher incidence of PVE in TAVR recipients, especially within the first year postimplantation. A significant proportion of these cases trace back to oral-pharyngeal bacteria. However, no consensus exists on dental screening for TAVR, unlike the standard procedure for surgical aortic valve replacement. Dental screenings could reduce PVE risks and aid in patient recovery. This article underscores the importance of dental screenings, calling for more research to establish its efficacy and systematic application for TAVRI candidates. Collaborative efforts between oral and maxillofacial surgeons and cardiologists are crucial for optimal patient outcomes.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided Versus Angiography-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the initial evidence supporting the utility of intravascular imaging to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), adoption remains low. Recent new trial data have become available. An updated study-level meta-analysis comparing intravascular imaging to angiography to guide PCI was performed. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A random-effects meta-analysis was performed on the basis of the intention-to-treat principle. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, and all-cause death. Mixed-effects meta-regression was performed to investigate the impact of complex PCI on the primary outcomes. A total of 16 trials with 7814 patients were included. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 28.8 months. Intravascular imaging led to a lower risk of major adverse cardiac events (relative risk [RR], 0.67 [95% CI, 0.55-0.82]; P<0.001), cardiac death (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.34-0.71]; P<0.001), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.40-0.99]; P=0.046), target-lesion revascularization (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.49-0.91]; P=0.01), and target-vessel revascularization (RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.45-0.80]; P<0.001). In complex lesion subsets, the point estimate for imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI for all-cause death was a RR of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.55-1.02; P=0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PCI, intravascular imaging is associated with reductions in major adverse cardiac events, cardiac death, stent thrombosis, target-lesion revascularization, and target-vessel revascularization. The magnitude of benefit is large and consistent across all included studies. There may also be benefits in all-cause death, particularly in complex lesion subsets. These results support the use of intravascular imaging as standard of care and updates of clinical guidelines.

First transaortic transcatheter aortic valve implantation with Acurate Neo: case report and technical recommendations

Background

In more than 90%, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is performed via transfemoral access. Alternative access routes are necessary for patients with unfavourable femoral arteries.

Case summary

We report of a 68-year-old female with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in whom surgical aortic valve replacement was prohibited due to her severe co-morbidities. Both femoral arteries and both subclavian arteries were unsuitable for TAVI access. Surgical aortic valve replacement and transapical TAVI were deferred due to extremely high operative risk and very low originating left coronary artery of 7 mm from the annulus. Hence, we decided to implant a self-expanding TAVI device with a low risk of coronary obstruction (Acurate Neo 2 prosthesis) via transaortic approach, which to our knowledge is the first case worldwide.

Conclusion

The present case demonstrates the feasibility of implanting the Acurate Neo 2 system via transaortic approach when certain key points are respected. Transaortic TAVI with the Acurate Neo 2 offers a minimally invasive treatment of high operative risk patients with low originating coronary arteries.

Midterm Survival of Low-Risk Patients Treated With Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Background We performed a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies comparing transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR versus SAVR) to evaluate midterm outcomes in patients considered low risk for SAVR. Methods and Results Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of RCTs and PSM studies published by December 31, 2022 was conducted. Eight studies (3 RCTs, 5 PSM studies) met our eligibility criteria and included 5444 patients; 2639 patients underwent TAVR, and 2805 patients underwent SAVR. TAVR showed a higher risk of all-cause mortality at 8 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, [95% CI, 1.03-1.43], P=0.018). Up to 2 years of follow-up, TAVR was not inferior to SAVR (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.89-1.31], P=0.448); however, we observed a statistically significant difference after 2 years with higher mortality with TAVR (HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.14-2.00]; P=0.004). This difference was driven by PSM studies; our sensitivity analysis showed a statistically significant difference between TAVR and SAVR when we included only PSM studies (HR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.16-1.72], P=0.001) but no statistically significant difference when we included only RCTs (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.69-1.16], P=0.398). Conclusions In comparison with TAVR, SAVR appeared to be associated with improved survival beyond 2 years in low-risk patients. However, the survival benefit of SAVR was observed only in PSM studies and not in RCTs. The addition of data from ongoing RCTs as well as longer follow-up in previous RCTs will help to confirm if there is a difference in mid- and long-term survival between TAVR versus SAVR in the low-risk population.

Bayesian interpretation of non-inferiority in transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The concept of non-inferiority is widely adopted in randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, uncertainty exists regarding the long-term outcomes of TAVR, and non-inferiority may be difficult to assess. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing TAVR and SAVR, with a specific emphasis on the non-inferiority margin for 5-year all-cause mortality.

METHODS

A systematic search was applied to 3 electronic databases. Randomized trials comparing TAVR and SAVR were included. Bayesian methods were implemented to evaluate the posterior probability of non-inferiority at different trial non-inferiority margins under either a vague, Cauchy, or a literature-based prior. Primary outcomes were 5-year actuarial all-cause mortality, and the probability of non-inferiority at various transformed trial non-inferiority margins. Secondary outcomes were long-term survival and 1- and 2-year actuarial survival.

RESULTS

Eight trials (n = 8698 patients) were included. Kaplan-Meier-derived 5-year survival was 61.6% (95% CI 59.8-63.5%) for TAVR, and 63.7% (95% CI 61.9-65.6%) for SAVR. Six trials (n = 6370 patients) reported all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up. Under a vague prior, the posterior median relative risk for all-cause mortality of TAVR was 1.14, compared to SAVR (95% credible interval 1.06-1.22, probability of relative risk <1.00 = 0.01%, I2 = 0%). Similar results in terms of point estimate and uncertainty measures were obtained using frequentist methods. Based on the various trial non-inferiority margins, the results of the analysis suggest that non-inferiority at 5 years is no longer likely.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unlikely that TAVR is still non-inferior to SAVR at 5 years in terms of all-cause mortality.

Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Stroke is a feared complication of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which embolic protection devices (EPDs) may mitigate. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of EPDs in TAVR.

Methods

All RCTs comparing EPDs with control during TAVR were systematically identified. Prespecified primary end points were all stroke, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and all-cause mortality. Safety and neuroimaging parameters were assessed. Sensitivity analyses were stratified by EPD type. Study registration was a priori (CRD42022377939).

Results

Eight trials randomizing 4043 patients were included. There was no significant difference between EPDs and control for all stroke (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.65-1.18; P = .39; I2 = 0%), disabling stroke (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.31-1.46; P = .32; I2 = 8.6%), nondisabling stroke (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.71-1.40; P = .97; I2 = 0%), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.43-1.78; P = .71; I2 = 2.3%). There were no differences in safety end points of bleeding, vascular complications, or acute kidney injury. EPDs did not result in differences in total lesion volume or the number of new lesions. The Sentinel EPD significantly reduced the risk of disabling stroke (RR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.88; P = .022; I2 = 0%) but did not affect all stroke, nondisabling stroke, or all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

The totality of randomized data for EPDs during TAVR demonstrated no safety concerns or significant differences in clinical or neuroimaging end points. Analyses restricted to the Sentinel EPD demonstrated large, clinically meaningful reductions in disabling stroke. Ongoing RCTs may help validate these results.

Angiographic quantification of aortic regurgitation following myval octacor implantation; independent core lab adjudication

BACKGROUND

The balloon expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) showed encouraging results regarding residual aortic regurgitation (AR) from multiple observational studies. The newly designed Myval Octacor has been introduced recently, aiming for a reduction in AR and improved performance.

OBJECTIVES

The focus of this study is to report the incidence of AR using the validated quantitative Videodensitometry angiography technology (qLVOT-AR%) in the first in human use of the Myval Octacor THV system.

METHODOLOGY

We report on the first in human use of the Myval Octacor THV system in 125 patients in 18 Indian centres. Independent retrospective analysis of the final aortograms following implantation of the Myval Octacor was performed using the CAAS-A-Valve software. AR is reported as a regurgitation fraction. The previously validated cutoff values have been used to identify ≥moderate AR (RF% >17%), mild (6% < RF% ≤17%), and none or trace AR (RF% ≤ 6%).

RESULTS

Final aortogram was analysable for 103 patients (84.4%) among the 122 available aortograms. 64 (62%) patients, had tricuspid aortic valve (TAV), 38 (37%) with bicuspid AV (BAV), and one with unicuspid AV. The median absolute RF% was 2% [1, 6], moderate or more AR incidence was 1.9%, mild AR in 20.4%, and none or trace AR in 77.7%. The two cases with RF% >17% were in the BAV group.

CONCLUSION

The initial results of Myval Octacor using quantitative angiography-derived regurgitation fraction demonstrated a favourable outcome regarding residual AR, possibly due to improved device design. Results must be confirmed in a larger randomised study, including other imaging modalities.

Early and Mid-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is expanding significantly. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) during the early and mid-term follow-up period. (2) Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1- to 2-year outcomes between TAVI and SAVR. The study protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO and the results were reported according to PRISMA guidelines. (3) Results: The pooled analysis included data from eight RCTs totaling 8780 patients. TAVI was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke (OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.77–0.99), significant bleeding (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.25–0.59), acute kidney injury (AKI; OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.40–0.69) and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.19–0.43). SAVR was associated with a lower risk of major vascular complication (MVC; OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.29–3.07) as well as permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI; OR 2.28, 95%CI 1.45–3.57). (3) Conclusions: TAVI compared with SAVR during early and mid-term follow-up was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke, significant bleeding, AKI and atrial fibrillation; however, it was associated with a higher risk of MVC and PPI.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Two Decades of Evolution - TAVI From Current Perspective

Background

In the treatment of valvular heart diseases, transcatheter therapies have changed the rules of the game, especially in the case of aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation. Since the first in man transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI) performed by Dr. Alain Cribier in 2002 in a non-operable aortic stenosis (AS) patient, TAVI has changed the lives of so many patients for whom medical treatment was, up to then, the only option.

Objective

This article outlines patient selection and pre-procedure evaluation, current perspectives, recent advances, current and future devices, current guidelines informing the use of TAVI, expanding indications for TAVI, ongoing challenges and the future of TAVI.

Methods

The use of these percutaneous techniques has also increased significantly in the past few years with its first application in 2002, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has revolutionized the management of aortic stenosis and has become the standard of care for patients with AS at prohibitively high surgical risks, as well as a preferred treatment for elderly patients with intermediate and high-risk AS.

Results

Since the first pioneering procedure was performed 22 years ago, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved into a routine procedure increasingly performed under conscious sedation via transfemoral access. On a global market worth $2 billion per year, over 300 000 patients have received a transcatheter aortic valve, demonstrating its clinical and market impact. TAVI may be used in lower risk, younger, asymptomatic populations with ongoing studies using an expanding portfolio of devices. Also, for patients deemed unsuitable for cardiac surgery, mitral transcatheter therapies represent the treatment of choice. Percutaneous repair techniques have had the most clinical experience to date.

Conclusion

During this 20-year period, the increased knowledge on pre-procedural planning, the important technological improvements in transcatheter valves, the increased experience and the numerous studies that have been carried out have permitted an expansion of the indications for TAVI, from inoperable patients to high- and intermediate-risk patients. This article outlines patient selection and pre-procedure evaluation, current perspectives, recent advances, current and future devices, current guidelines informing the use of TAVI, expanding indications for TAVI, ongoing challenges and the future of TAVI.