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.

自体扩张与球囊扩张经导管主动脉瓣置换术的有效性和安全性比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)对于有症状的严重主动脉瓣狭窄且手术风险增加的患者是一种安全的替代手术主动脉瓣置换术。然而,自膨胀阀(SEV)与球囊膨胀阀(BEV)的对比数据仍然有限。方法:到2024年4月,对PubMed和Embase进行了全面回顾,确定了8项研究(5项随机对照试验和3项倾向匹配观察性研究),比较了SEV和BEV在TAVR中的作用。主要结局包括全因死亡率、心血管死亡率和瓣膜学术研究联盟标准的装置成功,而次要结局评估生物人工瓣膜功能障碍和不良事件(环破裂/夹层、冠状动脉闭塞、瓣膜脱位/栓塞、瓣膜血栓形成、中度和重度瓣旁主动脉反流、心内膜炎、永久性起搏器植入、严重或危及生命的出血、急性肾损伤、和中风)。结果:共纳入4032例患者(SEV = 2006;贝福 = 2017)。SEV与中重度瓣旁主动脉反流发生率较高相关[OR, 1.76;可信区间1.13 - -2.74;P = 0.01]和永久性起搏器放置[OR, 1.57;CI, 1.23 - -2.00;P = 0.0002]。在30天或1年的全因死亡率、心血管死亡率、器械成功、生物人工瓣膜功能障碍、瓣膜脱位/栓塞、瓣膜血栓形成、心内膜炎、严重或危及生命的出血、冠状动脉闭塞、中风、再住院或急性肾损伤方面均无显著差异。结论:SEV和BEV在死亡率和装置成功方面具有可比性。然而,在为个别患者选择最佳TAVR瓣膜时,应考虑到中度至重度瓣旁主动脉反流和SEV永久性起搏器放置的较高风险。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信