经皮主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)与外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)对腔旁漏的临床影响:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Heart, Lung and Circulation Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.hlc.2024.02.017
{"title":"经皮主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)与外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)对腔旁漏的临床影响:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.hlc.2024.02.017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span>Aortic valve stenosis is a common cardiac condition that requires intervention for symptomatic and/or prognostic reasons. The two most common interventions are surgical </span>aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and </span>transcatheter aortic valve implantation<span> (TAVI). The ratio of TAVI:SAVR has increased twofold over the past few years and is now being considered in intermediate-risk patients as well. One of the significant benefits of TAVI is that it is less invasive; however, one of the drawbacks is a high paravalvular leaks (PVLs) rate compared to SAVR. To assess the impact of PVLs on survival, progression of heart failure, and the need for re-intervention.</span></p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search from the conception of TAVI 2002 until December 2022 through Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Science Direct, and CENTRAL (Wiley). We followed PRISMA guidelines and checklists. Review protocol registration ID in PROSPERO: CRD42023393742.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 28 studies that met our eligibility criteria, and only 24 studies were suitable for pooling in a meta-analysis (including their hazard ratio with a confidence interval of 95%) assessing our primary outcome (all-cause mortality). The remaining four studies were narratively synthesised.</p><p>RevMan V5.4 (Version 5.4. Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was utilised to pool meta-analysis data to assess effect estimates of PVLs in both intervention arms, using a random effect model for calculation (hazard ratio 1.14 confidence interval 95% 1.08–1.21 [p&lt;0.0001]), with a follow-up duration between 30 days to 5 years.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patients with mild or higher degrees of PVLs in both intervention arms incurred unfavourable outcomes. The incidence of PVLs was significantly higher with TAVI; even a mild degree led to poor quality of life and increased all-cause mortality on long-term follow-up.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":13000,"journal":{"name":"Heart, Lung and Circulation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Clinical Impact of Paravalvular Leaks With Transcutaneous Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hlc.2024.02.017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span>Aortic valve stenosis is a common cardiac condition that requires intervention for symptomatic and/or prognostic reasons. The two most common interventions are surgical </span>aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and </span>transcatheter aortic valve implantation<span> (TAVI). The ratio of TAVI:SAVR has increased twofold over the past few years and is now being considered in intermediate-risk patients as well. One of the significant benefits of TAVI is that it is less invasive; however, one of the drawbacks is a high paravalvular leaks (PVLs) rate compared to SAVR. To assess the impact of PVLs on survival, progression of heart failure, and the need for re-intervention.</span></p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search from the conception of TAVI 2002 until December 2022 through Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Science Direct, and CENTRAL (Wiley). We followed PRISMA guidelines and checklists. Review protocol registration ID in PROSPERO: CRD42023393742.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We identified 28 studies that met our eligibility criteria, and only 24 studies were suitable for pooling in a meta-analysis (including their hazard ratio with a confidence interval of 95%) assessing our primary outcome (all-cause mortality). The remaining four studies were narratively synthesised.</p><p>RevMan V5.4 (Version 5.4. Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was utilised to pool meta-analysis data to assess effect estimates of PVLs in both intervention arms, using a random effect model for calculation (hazard ratio 1.14 confidence interval 95% 1.08–1.21 [p&lt;0.0001]), with a follow-up duration between 30 days to 5 years.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patients with mild or higher degrees of PVLs in both intervention arms incurred unfavourable outcomes. The incidence of PVLs was significantly higher with TAVI; even a mild degree led to poor quality of life and increased all-cause mortality on long-term follow-up.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Heart, Lung and Circulation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Heart, Lung and Circulation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950624001550\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart, Lung and Circulation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1443950624001550","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:主动脉瓣狭窄是一种常见的心脏疾病,由于症状和/或预后原因需要进行干预。最常见的两种干预措施是外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)和经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)。在过去几年中,TAVI 与 SAVR 的比例增加了两倍,现在中危患者也开始考虑 TAVI。TAVI 的主要优点之一是创伤较小;但缺点之一是与 SAVR 相比,瓣膜旁漏(PVL)率较高。为了评估PVLs对生存、心衰进展和再次介入治疗需求的影响:我们通过 Embase (Ovid)、MEDLINE (Ovid)、Science Direct 和 CENTRAL (Wiley),对 2002 年 TAVI 诞生至 2022 年 12 月期间的文献进行了全面系统的检索。我们遵循了 PRISMA 指南和核对表。审查协议在 PROSPERO 中的注册编号为:CRD42023393742:我们确定了 28 项符合资格标准的研究,其中只有 24 项研究适合在荟萃分析中进行汇总(包括置信区间为 95% 的危险比),以评估我们的主要结果(全因死亡率)。对其余四项研究进行了叙述性综合。RevMan V5.4 (Version 5.4. Cochrane Collaboration, 2020)用于汇集荟萃分析数据,以评估两个干预组中PVLs的效应估计值,采用随机效应模型进行计算(危险比1.14,置信区间95% 1.08-1.21 [p结论:两个干预组中都有轻度或更严重PVL的患者,结果均不理想。TAVI的PVL发生率明显更高;即使是轻度PVL,也会导致生活质量下降,长期随访的全因死亡率增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Clinical Impact of Paravalvular Leaks With Transcutaneous Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Aortic valve stenosis is a common cardiac condition that requires intervention for symptomatic and/or prognostic reasons. The two most common interventions are surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The ratio of TAVI:SAVR has increased twofold over the past few years and is now being considered in intermediate-risk patients as well. One of the significant benefits of TAVI is that it is less invasive; however, one of the drawbacks is a high paravalvular leaks (PVLs) rate compared to SAVR. To assess the impact of PVLs on survival, progression of heart failure, and the need for re-intervention.

Method

We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search from the conception of TAVI 2002 until December 2022 through Embase (Ovid), MEDLINE (Ovid), Science Direct, and CENTRAL (Wiley). We followed PRISMA guidelines and checklists. Review protocol registration ID in PROSPERO: CRD42023393742.

Results

We identified 28 studies that met our eligibility criteria, and only 24 studies were suitable for pooling in a meta-analysis (including their hazard ratio with a confidence interval of 95%) assessing our primary outcome (all-cause mortality). The remaining four studies were narratively synthesised.

RevMan V5.4 (Version 5.4. Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) was utilised to pool meta-analysis data to assess effect estimates of PVLs in both intervention arms, using a random effect model for calculation (hazard ratio 1.14 confidence interval 95% 1.08–1.21 [p<0.0001]), with a follow-up duration between 30 days to 5 years.

Conclusion

Patients with mild or higher degrees of PVLs in both intervention arms incurred unfavourable outcomes. The incidence of PVLs was significantly higher with TAVI; even a mild degree led to poor quality of life and increased all-cause mortality on long-term follow-up.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Heart, Lung and Circulation
Heart, Lung and Circulation CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.80%
发文量
912
审稿时长
11.9 weeks
期刊介绍: Heart, Lung and Circulation publishes articles integrating clinical and research activities in the fields of basic cardiovascular science, clinical cardiology and cardiac surgery, with a focus on emerging issues in cardiovascular disease. The journal promotes multidisciplinary dialogue between cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, cardio-pulmonary physicians and cardiovascular scientists.
期刊最新文献
Research Priorities for Atrial Fibrillation in Australia: A Statement From the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance Clinical Arrhythmia Theme. Editorial Board Impact of Diabetes in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Within 48 Hours Effects of Smoking on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Coronary Artery Spasm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Appropriateness of ChatGPT in Answering Heart Failure Related Questions
×
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