Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.2 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardio-oncology Pub Date : 2024-09-12 DOI:10.1186/s40959-024-00265-7
Farah Yasmin, Abdul Moeed, Muhammad Tanveer Alam, Vikash Virwani, Yumna Khabir, Asim Shaikh, Apurva V Vyas, M Chadi Alraies
{"title":"Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Farah Yasmin, Abdul Moeed, Muhammad Tanveer Alam, Vikash Virwani, Yumna Khabir, Asim Shaikh, Apurva V Vyas, M Chadi Alraies","doi":"10.1186/s40959-024-00265-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical outcomes for TAVR in cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy (C-XRT) who develop symptomatic aortic-valve stenosis are not adequately assessed in major clinical trials leading to conflicting results. Hence, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the, safety, efficacy, and mortality outcomes of cancer survivors with prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR. MEDLINE and Scopus were searched up to March 2024. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing severe aortic stenosis patients with and without prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR with at least one outcome of interest were shortlisted. Data were analyzed using random-effects model to derive weighted mean differences, and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Six studies with 6,191 patients (278 C-XRT and 5,913 no-C-XRT) were included. All-cause mortality at 30-day (RR 1.63, p = 0.12) and 1-year interval (RR 1.59, p = 0.08) showed no significant differences with prior C-XRT versus no-C-XRT. Worsening CHF was the only post-procedural safety outcome significantly higher in patients with prior C-XRT (RR 1.98, p = 0.0004) versus no- C-XRT. The efficacy end-points i.e., improvement in LVEF (MD 1.24; -0.50, 2.98), and aortic valve gradient (MD -0.63; -1.32, 0.05) were not significantly different. TAVR has similar all-cause mortality, efficacy and safety (except CHF worsening) among cancer survivors with and without a prior history of C-XRT.</p>","PeriodicalId":9804,"journal":{"name":"Cardio-oncology","volume":"10 1","pages":"61"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11391771/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardio-oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40959-024-00265-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical outcomes for TAVR in cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy (C-XRT) who develop symptomatic aortic-valve stenosis are not adequately assessed in major clinical trials leading to conflicting results. Hence, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the, safety, efficacy, and mortality outcomes of cancer survivors with prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR. MEDLINE and Scopus were searched up to March 2024. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing severe aortic stenosis patients with and without prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR with at least one outcome of interest were shortlisted. Data were analyzed using random-effects model to derive weighted mean differences, and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Six studies with 6,191 patients (278 C-XRT and 5,913 no-C-XRT) were included. All-cause mortality at 30-day (RR 1.63, p = 0.12) and 1-year interval (RR 1.59, p = 0.08) showed no significant differences with prior C-XRT versus no-C-XRT. Worsening CHF was the only post-procedural safety outcome significantly higher in patients with prior C-XRT (RR 1.98, p = 0.0004) versus no- C-XRT. The efficacy end-points i.e., improvement in LVEF (MD 1.24; -0.50, 2.98), and aortic valve gradient (MD -0.63; -1.32, 0.05) were not significantly different. TAVR has similar all-cause mortality, efficacy and safety (except CHF worsening) among cancer survivors with and without a prior history of C-XRT.

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
曾接受过胸部放射治疗的癌症幸存者经导管主动脉瓣置换术后的疗效:最新系统综述和荟萃分析。
曾接受过胸部放射治疗(C-XRT)的癌症幸存者在出现无症状主动脉瓣狭窄时接受 TAVR 的临床结果在主要临床试验中未得到充分评估,导致结果相互矛盾。因此,我们进行了这项荟萃分析,以评估曾接受过 C-XRT 的癌症幸存者接受 TAVR 的安全性、有效性和死亡率。我们检索了截至 2024 年 3 月的 MEDLINE 和 Scopus。筛选出了观察性研究和随机对照试验,这些研究比较了接受 TAVR 的重度主动脉瓣狭窄患者接受 C-XRT 和未接受 C-XRT 的情况,并得出了至少一项相关结果。采用随机效应模型对数据进行分析,得出加权平均差、风险比和 95% 置信区间。共纳入六项研究,6,191 名患者(278 名 C-XRT 患者和 5,913 名非 C-XRT 患者)。30天(RR 1.63,p = 0.12)和1年(RR 1.59,p = 0.08)的全因死亡率显示,先行C-XRT与未行C-XRT无显著差异。CHF恶化是既往接受过C-XRT(RR 1.98,p = 0.0004)与未接受过C-XRT的患者术后安全性显著较高的唯一结果。疗效终点,即 LVEF 改善(MD 1.24;-0.50,2.98)和主动脉瓣坡度(MD -0.63;-1.32,0.05)没有明显差异。在既往接受过C-XRT治疗和未接受过C-XRT治疗的癌症幸存者中,TAVR具有相似的全因死亡率、疗效和安全性(除CHF恶化外)。
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
Cardio-oncology
Cardio-oncology Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
3.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊最新文献
A strain-guided trial of cardioprotection in early-stage breast cancer patients on anti-HER2 therapy (PROTECT HER2). Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential is associated with increased risk of immune checkpoint inhibitor myocarditis in a prospective study of a cardio-oncology cohort. Sternotomy and extracorporal circulation for fulminant Budd-Chiari syndrome due to leiomyosarcoma of the inferior vena cava. Clinical and pathological characteristics of immune checkpoint inhibitor-related fulminant myocarditis. Cardiac arrhythmias during and after thoracic irradiation for malignancies.
×
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