12 Transcatheter versus surgical approach for severe aortic stenosis with concomitant coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of early and mid-term outcomes

R. Kotronias, J. Bray, R. Scarsini, Skanda Rajasundaram, D. Terentes-Printzios, G. L. Maria, R. Kharbanda, M. Mamas, R. Bagur, Adrian Bannning
{"title":"12 Transcatheter versus surgical approach for severe aortic stenosis with concomitant coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of early and mid-term outcomes","authors":"R. Kotronias, J. Bray, R. Scarsini, Skanda Rajasundaram, D. Terentes-Printzios, G. L. Maria, R. Kharbanda, M. Mamas, R. Bagur, Adrian Bannning","doi":"10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-BCS.12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently encountered in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Contemporary recommendations advocate revascularisation of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and concomitant significant coronary artery disease (CAD) by either a surgical or percutaneous approach. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the early and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) against patients who had TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods A search of Medline and Embase was performed to identify studies comparing transcatheter and surgical approaches. Our search was independently screened by two investigators. Random effects meta-analyses with the Mantel-Haenzsel method were performed to estimate the odds of adverse outcomes. Analyses were performed with RevMan (Review Manager version 5.3.5, Nordic Cochrane Centre, Denmark). Results 1770 participants from six studies (5 observational, 1 randomised) were included in the meta-analysis (631 TAVR and PCI, 1139 SAVR and CABG). The mean age of participants was 79.2 years and 58.9% were male. TAVR was performed via both transapical/transaortic and transfemoral routes, using both self-expandable and balloon expandable valve systems. PCI was conducted either concomitant to TAVR or up to a year before. Risk of bias assessed using the ROBINS-I tool, identified 1 study at low risk and 4 studies at high risk of bias, predominately due to selection bias. There were no significant differences in effect estimates for early and mid-term mortality (OR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20 and OR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80-1.49) or myocardial infarction (OR: 0.52 95% CI, 0.20-1.33 and OR: 1.34; 95% CI, 0.67-2.65) No significant difference was noted in early cerebrovascular accidents (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.35-1.87). A transcatheter approach was associated with a higher rate of new permanent pacemaker insertion (OR: 3.47; 95% CI, 1.98-6.06) and major vascular complications (OR: 14.44; 95% CI, 4.42-47.16), but a lower rate of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19-0.91). Conclusion These data suggest that in patients with severe AS and CAD a transcatheter approach has comparable outcomes to a surgical approach. Pending high level evidence, surgical risk assessment should form the cornerstone of individualised decision making. Conflict of Interest None","PeriodicalId":152114,"journal":{"name":"ACHD/Valve Disease/Pericardial Disease/Cardiomyopathy","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACHD/Valve Disease/Pericardial Disease/Cardiomyopathy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/HEARTJNL-2020-BCS.12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently encountered in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Contemporary recommendations advocate revascularisation of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and concomitant significant coronary artery disease (CAD) by either a surgical or percutaneous approach. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the early and mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) against patients who had TAVR and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods A search of Medline and Embase was performed to identify studies comparing transcatheter and surgical approaches. Our search was independently screened by two investigators. Random effects meta-analyses with the Mantel-Haenzsel method were performed to estimate the odds of adverse outcomes. Analyses were performed with RevMan (Review Manager version 5.3.5, Nordic Cochrane Centre, Denmark). Results 1770 participants from six studies (5 observational, 1 randomised) were included in the meta-analysis (631 TAVR and PCI, 1139 SAVR and CABG). The mean age of participants was 79.2 years and 58.9% were male. TAVR was performed via both transapical/transaortic and transfemoral routes, using both self-expandable and balloon expandable valve systems. PCI was conducted either concomitant to TAVR or up to a year before. Risk of bias assessed using the ROBINS-I tool, identified 1 study at low risk and 4 studies at high risk of bias, predominately due to selection bias. There were no significant differences in effect estimates for early and mid-term mortality (OR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20 and OR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80-1.49) or myocardial infarction (OR: 0.52 95% CI, 0.20-1.33 and OR: 1.34; 95% CI, 0.67-2.65) No significant difference was noted in early cerebrovascular accidents (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.35-1.87). A transcatheter approach was associated with a higher rate of new permanent pacemaker insertion (OR: 3.47; 95% CI, 1.98-6.06) and major vascular complications (OR: 14.44; 95% CI, 4.42-47.16), but a lower rate of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19-0.91). Conclusion These data suggest that in patients with severe AS and CAD a transcatheter approach has comparable outcomes to a surgical approach. Pending high level evidence, surgical risk assessment should form the cornerstone of individualised decision making. Conflict of Interest None
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经导管与手术治疗严重主动脉狭窄合并冠状动脉疾病:早期和中期预后的系统回顾和荟萃分析
冠状动脉疾病(CAD)是经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)患者中常见的疾病。当前的建议是,对于严重主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)并伴有严重冠状动脉疾病(CAD)的患者,可以通过手术或经皮入路进行血管重建术。我们进行了一项系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估接受外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)和冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)的患者与接受TAVR和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)的患者的早期和中期结果。方法检索Medline和Embase,找出经导管入路与外科入路比较的研究。我们的调查是由两位调查员独立筛选的。随机效应荟萃分析采用Mantel-Haenzsel方法估计不良结果的几率。采用RevMan软件(Review Manager version 5.3.5, Nordic Cochrane Centre,丹麦)进行分析。来自6项研究的1770名参与者(5项观察性研究,1项随机化研究)被纳入meta分析(631项TAVR和PCI, 1139项SAVR和CABG)。参与者的平均年龄为79.2岁,58.9%为男性。TAVR通过经根尖/经主动脉和经股骨两种途径进行,使用自膨胀和球囊膨胀瓣膜系统。PCI要么与TAVR同时进行,要么在一年前进行。使用ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险,确定了1项低风险研究和4项高风险研究,主要是由于选择偏倚。早期和中期死亡率的效应估计没有显著差异(OR: 0.78;95% CI, 0.50-1.20, OR: 1.09;95% CI, 0.80-1.49)或心肌梗死(or: 0.52 95% CI, 0.20-1.33, or: 1.34;95% CI, 0.67-2.65)早期脑血管意外发生率无显著差异(OR: 0.80;95% ci, 0.35-1.87)。经导管入路与新的永久性起搏器插入率较高相关(OR: 3.47;95% CI, 1.98-6.06)和主要血管并发症(OR: 14.44;95% CI, 4.42-47.16),但急性肾损伤发生率较低(OR: 0.41;95% ci, 0.19-0.91)。结论:这些数据表明,在严重AS和CAD患者中,经导管入路与手术入路的结果相当。在高水平证据出现之前,手术风险评估应成为个体化决策的基石。利益冲突无
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
31 Case report: a new diagnosis of heterotaxy syndrome with left isomerism and pulmonary hypertension in an older adult 21 The effect of surgical scar on spirometry at cardiopulmonary exercise testing for adult congenital heart disease patients 29 Demographic characteristics of TOF patients who underwent PVS; Northern Irish experience 16 Screening for and monitoring fontan-associated liver disease in a tertiary centre 4 Cardiac power and power reserve are impaired in asymptomatic patients with aortic stenosis and associated with exercise capacity
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1