Comparative Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review.
{"title":"Comparative Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Omar Hamodat, Saif Almuzainy, Salma Nizar","doi":"10.37616/2212-5043.1393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease globally; while transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a competitive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and revolutionized treatment, its safety and efficacy has yet to be comprehensively assessed against SAVR for certain subsets of aortic stenosis patients; therefore, this study aims to systematically analyze all the available clinical evidence from randomized clinical trials on TAVR versus SAVR among intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We performed a systematic review of the randomized controlled trials (RCT), studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a comprehensive search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A comprehensive screening of 14,384 records identified 9 studies, encompassing 8884 patients with a mean age of 77.76 years and 49.47% male. TAVR demonstrated a significantly lower all-cause mortality at both 30 days and 1 year compared to SAVR, with comparable outcomes at 2 years, underscoring its potential for enhanced survival. Stroke incidence was markedly lower with TAVR at both 30 days and 1 year, highlighting its favorable neurological safety profile. Additionally, TAVR showed a reduced rate of myocardial infarction within the initial 30 days post-procedure. Prosthetic valve endocarditis rates remained low and comparable between the two approaches at both 30 days and 1 year. Notably, TAVR was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, suggesting a faster recovery trajectory and improved patient throughput. These findings collectively emphasize the superior efficacy and safety profile of TAVR over SAVR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TAVR may serve as a viable therapeutic option for intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes and TAVR device durability, especially in younger, lower-risk populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":17319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Saudi Heart Association","volume":"36 3","pages":"242-251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11517992/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Saudi Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37616/2212-5043.1393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease globally; while transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a competitive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and revolutionized treatment, its safety and efficacy has yet to be comprehensively assessed against SAVR for certain subsets of aortic stenosis patients; therefore, this study aims to systematically analyze all the available clinical evidence from randomized clinical trials on TAVR versus SAVR among intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.
Methodology: We performed a systematic review of the randomized controlled trials (RCT), studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a comprehensive search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed.
Results: A comprehensive screening of 14,384 records identified 9 studies, encompassing 8884 patients with a mean age of 77.76 years and 49.47% male. TAVR demonstrated a significantly lower all-cause mortality at both 30 days and 1 year compared to SAVR, with comparable outcomes at 2 years, underscoring its potential for enhanced survival. Stroke incidence was markedly lower with TAVR at both 30 days and 1 year, highlighting its favorable neurological safety profile. Additionally, TAVR showed a reduced rate of myocardial infarction within the initial 30 days post-procedure. Prosthetic valve endocarditis rates remained low and comparable between the two approaches at both 30 days and 1 year. Notably, TAVR was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, suggesting a faster recovery trajectory and improved patient throughput. These findings collectively emphasize the superior efficacy and safety profile of TAVR over SAVR.
Conclusion: TAVR may serve as a viable therapeutic option for intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes and TAVR device durability, especially in younger, lower-risk populations.