Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Reed A. Siemieniuk, Thomas Agoritsas, Veena Manja, Tahira Devji, Yaping Chang, Malgorzata M. Bala, Lehana Thabane, Gordon H. Guyatt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective To examine the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk of perioperative death. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Study selection Randomized trials of TAVI compared with SAVR in patients with a mean perioperative risk of death <8%. Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for outcomes important to patients that were selected a priori by a parallel guideline committee, including patient advisors. We used the GRADE system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Results 4 trials with 3179 patients and a median follow-up of two years were included. Compared with SAVR, transfemoral TAVI was associated with reduced mortality (risk difference per 1000 patients: -30, 95% confidence interval -49 to -8, moderate certainty), stroke (-20, -37 to 1, moderate certainty), life threatening bleeding (-252, -293 to -190, high certainty), atrial fibrillation (-178, -150 to -203, moderate certainty), and acute kidney injury (-53, -39 to -62, high certainty) but increased short term aortic valve reintervention (7, 1 to 21, moderate certainty), permanent pacemaker insertion (134, 16 to 382, moderate certainty), and moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure (18, 5 to 34, moderate certainty). Compared with SAVR, transapical TAVI was associated higher mortality (57, -16 to 153, moderate certainty, P=0.015 for interaction between transfemoral versus transapical TAVI) and stroke (45, -2 to 125, moderate certainty, interaction P=0.012). No study reported long term follow-up, which is particularly important for structural valve deterioration. Conclusions Many patients, particularly those who have a shorter life expectancy or place a lower value on the risk of long term valve degeneration, are likely to perceive net benefit with transfemoral TAVI versus SAVR. SAVR, however, performs better than transapical TAVI, which is of interest to patients who are not candidates for transfemoral TAVI.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberi5130
JournalBMJ (Online)
Volume354
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve Stenosis
Aortic Valve
Surgical Instruments
Meta-Analysis
Stroke
Mortality
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Information Storage and Retrieval
Life Expectancy
Acute Kidney Injury
Atrial Fibrillation
Heart Failure
Guidelines
Confidence Intervals
Hemorrhage

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk : Systematic review and meta-analysis. / Siemieniuk, Reed A.; Agoritsas, Thomas; Manja, Veena; Devji, Tahira; Chang, Yaping; Bala, Malgorzata M.; Thabane, Lehana; Guyatt, Gordon H.

In: BMJ (Online), Vol. 354, i5130, 01.01.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Siemieniuk, Reed A. ; Agoritsas, Thomas ; Manja, Veena ; Devji, Tahira ; Chang, Yaping ; Bala, Malgorzata M. ; Thabane, Lehana ; Guyatt, Gordon H. / Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk : Systematic review and meta-analysis. In: BMJ (Online). 2016 ; Vol. 354.
@article{8c9f35eea7f14ef284a8d626d0f38a09,
title = "Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: Systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Objective To examine the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk of perioperative death. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Study selection Randomized trials of TAVI compared with SAVR in patients with a mean perioperative risk of death <8{\%}. Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for outcomes important to patients that were selected a priori by a parallel guideline committee, including patient advisors. We used the GRADE system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Results 4 trials with 3179 patients and a median follow-up of two years were included. Compared with SAVR, transfemoral TAVI was associated with reduced mortality (risk difference per 1000 patients: -30, 95{\%} confidence interval -49 to -8, moderate certainty), stroke (-20, -37 to 1, moderate certainty), life threatening bleeding (-252, -293 to -190, high certainty), atrial fibrillation (-178, -150 to -203, moderate certainty), and acute kidney injury (-53, -39 to -62, high certainty) but increased short term aortic valve reintervention (7, 1 to 21, moderate certainty), permanent pacemaker insertion (134, 16 to 382, moderate certainty), and moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure (18, 5 to 34, moderate certainty). Compared with SAVR, transapical TAVI was associated higher mortality (57, -16 to 153, moderate certainty, P=0.015 for interaction between transfemoral versus transapical TAVI) and stroke (45, -2 to 125, moderate certainty, interaction P=0.012). No study reported long term follow-up, which is particularly important for structural valve deterioration. Conclusions Many patients, particularly those who have a shorter life expectancy or place a lower value on the risk of long term valve degeneration, are likely to perceive net benefit with transfemoral TAVI versus SAVR. SAVR, however, performs better than transapical TAVI, which is of interest to patients who are not candidates for transfemoral TAVI.",
author = "Siemieniuk, {Reed A.} and Thomas Agoritsas and Veena Manja and Tahira Devji and Yaping Chang and Bala, {Malgorzata M.} and Lehana Thabane and Guyatt, {Gordon H.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.i5130",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "354",
journal = "The BMJ",
issn = "0959-8146",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk

T2 - Systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Siemieniuk, Reed A.

AU - Agoritsas, Thomas

AU - Manja, Veena

AU - Devji, Tahira

AU - Chang, Yaping

AU - Bala, Malgorzata M.

AU - Thabane, Lehana

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Objective To examine the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk of perioperative death. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Study selection Randomized trials of TAVI compared with SAVR in patients with a mean perioperative risk of death <8%. Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for outcomes important to patients that were selected a priori by a parallel guideline committee, including patient advisors. We used the GRADE system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Results 4 trials with 3179 patients and a median follow-up of two years were included. Compared with SAVR, transfemoral TAVI was associated with reduced mortality (risk difference per 1000 patients: -30, 95% confidence interval -49 to -8, moderate certainty), stroke (-20, -37 to 1, moderate certainty), life threatening bleeding (-252, -293 to -190, high certainty), atrial fibrillation (-178, -150 to -203, moderate certainty), and acute kidney injury (-53, -39 to -62, high certainty) but increased short term aortic valve reintervention (7, 1 to 21, moderate certainty), permanent pacemaker insertion (134, 16 to 382, moderate certainty), and moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure (18, 5 to 34, moderate certainty). Compared with SAVR, transapical TAVI was associated higher mortality (57, -16 to 153, moderate certainty, P=0.015 for interaction between transfemoral versus transapical TAVI) and stroke (45, -2 to 125, moderate certainty, interaction P=0.012). No study reported long term follow-up, which is particularly important for structural valve deterioration. Conclusions Many patients, particularly those who have a shorter life expectancy or place a lower value on the risk of long term valve degeneration, are likely to perceive net benefit with transfemoral TAVI versus SAVR. SAVR, however, performs better than transapical TAVI, which is of interest to patients who are not candidates for transfemoral TAVI.

AB - Objective To examine the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk of perioperative death. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL. Study selection Randomized trials of TAVI compared with SAVR in patients with a mean perioperative risk of death <8%. Review methods Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for outcomes important to patients that were selected a priori by a parallel guideline committee, including patient advisors. We used the GRADE system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Results 4 trials with 3179 patients and a median follow-up of two years were included. Compared with SAVR, transfemoral TAVI was associated with reduced mortality (risk difference per 1000 patients: -30, 95% confidence interval -49 to -8, moderate certainty), stroke (-20, -37 to 1, moderate certainty), life threatening bleeding (-252, -293 to -190, high certainty), atrial fibrillation (-178, -150 to -203, moderate certainty), and acute kidney injury (-53, -39 to -62, high certainty) but increased short term aortic valve reintervention (7, 1 to 21, moderate certainty), permanent pacemaker insertion (134, 16 to 382, moderate certainty), and moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure (18, 5 to 34, moderate certainty). Compared with SAVR, transapical TAVI was associated higher mortality (57, -16 to 153, moderate certainty, P=0.015 for interaction between transfemoral versus transapical TAVI) and stroke (45, -2 to 125, moderate certainty, interaction P=0.012). No study reported long term follow-up, which is particularly important for structural valve deterioration. Conclusions Many patients, particularly those who have a shorter life expectancy or place a lower value on the risk of long term valve degeneration, are likely to perceive net benefit with transfemoral TAVI versus SAVR. SAVR, however, performs better than transapical TAVI, which is of interest to patients who are not candidates for transfemoral TAVI.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84990911142&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84990911142&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.i5130

DO - 10.1136/bmj.i5130

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84990911142

VL - 354

JO - The BMJ

JF - The BMJ

SN - 0959-8146

M1 - i5130

ER -