Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Montaser Elkholy, Mohammad Akkawi, George G Kidess, Zaid Abdulelah, Abdallah Rayyan, Mohammad Riyad Al-Dqour, Ahmad Damlakhy, Yasemin Bahar, M Chadi Alraies
{"title":"Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Montaser Elkholy, Mohammad Akkawi, George G Kidess, Zaid Abdulelah, Abdallah Rayyan, Mohammad Riyad Al-Dqour, Ahmad Damlakhy, Yasemin Bahar, M Chadi Alraies","doi":"10.1016/j.amjms.2025.04.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk. However, comparative data on self-expanding valves (SEV) versus balloon-expanding valves (BEV) remain limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive review of PubMed and Embase was conducted through April 2024, identifying eight studies (five randomized controlled trials and three propensity-matched observational studies) comparing SEV and BEV in TAVR. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and device success per Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria, while secondary outcomes assessed bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and adverse events (annulus rupture/dissection, coronary artery occlusion, valve dislocation/embolization, valve thrombosis, moderate and severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation, endocarditis, permanent pacemaker implantation, major or life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, and stroke).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 4,032 patients (SEV = 2,006; BEV = 2,017). SEV was associated with higher rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation [OR, 1.76; CI 1.13-2.74; P = 0.01] and permanent pacemaker placement [OR, 1.57; CI, 1.23-2.00; P = 0.0002] compared to BEV. No significant differences were observed in 30-day or 1-year all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, device success, bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, valve dislocation/embolization, valve thrombosis, endocarditis, major or life-threatening bleeding, coronary artery occlusion, stroke, rehospitalization, or acute kidney injury.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SEV and BEV demonstrated comparable outcomes in mortality and device success. However, the higher risk of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation and permanent pacemaker placement with SEV should be considered when selecting the optimal TAVR valve for individual patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":94223,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of the medical sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American journal of the medical sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjms.2025.04.010","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
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a safe alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk. However, comparative data on self-expanding valves (SEV) versus balloon-expanding valves (BEV) remain limited.
Methods: A comprehensive review of PubMed and Embase was conducted through April 2024, identifying eight studies (five randomized controlled trials and three propensity-matched observational studies) comparing SEV and BEV in TAVR. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and device success per Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria, while secondary outcomes assessed bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and adverse events (annulus rupture/dissection, coronary artery occlusion, valve dislocation/embolization, valve thrombosis, moderate and severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation, endocarditis, permanent pacemaker implantation, major or life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, and stroke).
Results: The analysis included 4,032 patients (SEV = 2,006; BEV = 2,017). SEV was associated with higher rates of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation [OR, 1.76; CI 1.13-2.74; P = 0.01] and permanent pacemaker placement [OR, 1.57; CI, 1.23-2.00; P = 0.0002] compared to BEV. No significant differences were observed in 30-day or 1-year all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, device success, bioprosthetic valve dysfunction, valve dislocation/embolization, valve thrombosis, endocarditis, major or life-threatening bleeding, coronary artery occlusion, stroke, rehospitalization, or acute kidney injury.
Conclusion: SEV and BEV demonstrated comparable outcomes in mortality and device success. However, the higher risk of moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation and permanent pacemaker placement with SEV should be considered when selecting the optimal TAVR valve for individual patients.