Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for High-Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.

IF 0.5 4区 医学 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Qinghua Meng, Maoting Ye, Haiying Zhang
{"title":"Safety of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for High-Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.","authors":"Qinghua Meng, Maoting Ye, Haiying Zhang","doi":"10.18087/cardio.2025.7.n2876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a life-threatening condition that necessitates prompt intervention, even in high-risk patients with contraindications to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a transformative treatment, utilizing various access routes, including transfemoral (TF), transapical, and other, alternative pathways. The selection of the access route significantly impacts procedural safety and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to compare the safety profiles of different TAVR access routes in high-risk patients with severe AS.Material and methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies that evaluated the safety outcomes of TAVR via various access routes in high-risk patients. Key endpoints analyzed were procedural complications, 30‑day mortality, cardiac electrophysiological abnormalities, stroke incidence, and vascular complications. Meta-analysis utilizing RevMan 5.3 was performed, employing fixed or random effects models based on heterogeneity.Results Seven studies encompassing 2,351 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled analysis revealed that the non-TF access routes were associated with a significantly higher risk ratio (RR) for procedural complications [RR=1.76; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.63-1.89, p&lt;0.00001] compared to the TF approach. No statistically significant difference in 30‑day mortality was observed among the access routes [OR=0.79; 95 % CI: 0.60-1.05, p=0.11]. However, alternative routes had increased odds ofcardiac electrophysiological abnormalities [OR=1.44; 95 % CI: 1.12-1.84, p=0.004]. There was no significant difference in stroke incidence between access routes [OR=1.16; 95 % CI: 0.75-1.79, p=0.51], but vascular complications were significantly more frequent with non-femoral routes [OR=1.70; 95 % CI: 1.29-2.24, p=0.0001].Conclusion This meta-analysis underscores the critical role of access route selection in the safety of TAVR. While the TF approach remains the gold standard due to its lower complication rates, alternative routes are indispensable for anatomically or clinically challenging cases. Refinements in procedural techniques, patient selection, and advanced imaging are essential to optimizing outcomes across all access routes. Further large-scale studies are warranted to validate these findings and enhance clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":54750,"journal":{"name":"Kardiologiya","volume":"65 7","pages":"63-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kardiologiya","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18087/cardio.2025.7.n2876","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a life-threatening condition that necessitates prompt intervention, even in high-risk patients with contraindications to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become a transformative treatment, utilizing various access routes, including transfemoral (TF), transapical, and other, alternative pathways. The selection of the access route significantly impacts procedural safety and outcomes. The purpose of this study is to compare the safety profiles of different TAVR access routes in high-risk patients with severe AS.Material and methods Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies that evaluated the safety outcomes of TAVR via various access routes in high-risk patients. Key endpoints analyzed were procedural complications, 30‑day mortality, cardiac electrophysiological abnormalities, stroke incidence, and vascular complications. Meta-analysis utilizing RevMan 5.3 was performed, employing fixed or random effects models based on heterogeneity.Results Seven studies encompassing 2,351 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled analysis revealed that the non-TF access routes were associated with a significantly higher risk ratio (RR) for procedural complications [RR=1.76; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 1.63-1.89, p<0.00001] compared to the TF approach. No statistically significant difference in 30‑day mortality was observed among the access routes [OR=0.79; 95 % CI: 0.60-1.05, p=0.11]. However, alternative routes had increased odds ofcardiac electrophysiological abnormalities [OR=1.44; 95 % CI: 1.12-1.84, p=0.004]. There was no significant difference in stroke incidence between access routes [OR=1.16; 95 % CI: 0.75-1.79, p=0.51], but vascular complications were significantly more frequent with non-femoral routes [OR=1.70; 95 % CI: 1.29-2.24, p=0.0001].Conclusion This meta-analysis underscores the critical role of access route selection in the safety of TAVR. While the TF approach remains the gold standard due to its lower complication rates, alternative routes are indispensable for anatomically or clinically challenging cases. Refinements in procedural techniques, patient selection, and advanced imaging are essential to optimizing outcomes across all access routes. Further large-scale studies are warranted to validate these findings and enhance clinical decision-making.

经导管主动脉瓣置换术治疗严重主动脉狭窄高危患者的安全性。
重度主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)是一种危及生命的疾病,需要及时干预,即使是有手术主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)禁忌症的高危患者。经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)已成为一种变革性的治疗方法,利用多种通路,包括经股(TF)、经根尖(TAVR)和其他替代途径。访问路径的选择显著影响手术的安全性和结果。本研究的目的是比较不同TAVR通路在高危严重AS患者中的安全性。材料和方法根据系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目,在PubMed和Cochrane图书馆数据库中进行了全面的文献检索,以确定通过各种途径评估高危患者TAVR安全性结果的研究。分析的主要终点是手术并发症、30天死亡率、心脏电生理异常、卒中发生率和血管并发症。采用RevMan 5.3进行meta分析,采用基于异质性的固定或随机效应模型。结果7项研究包括2351例患者纳入分析。合并分析显示,非tf通路与手术并发症的风险比(RR)显著升高[RR=1.76;95%置信区间(CI): 1.63-1.89, p<0.00001]。各通路30天死亡率无统计学差异[OR=0.79;95% CI: 0.60-1.05, p=0.11]。然而,其他途径增加了心脏电生理异常的几率[OR=1.44;95% CI: 1.12-1.84, p=0.004]。两种通路的卒中发生率无显著差异[OR=1.16;95% CI: 0.75-1.79, p=0.51],但血管并发症在非股路明显更常见[OR=1.70;95% CI: 1.29-2.24, p=0.0001]。结论本荟萃分析强调了TAVR通路选择对其安全性的关键作用。虽然由于其并发症发生率较低,TF入路仍然是金标准,但对于具有解剖学或临床挑战性的病例,其他途径是必不可少的。改进手术技术、患者选择和先进的成像技术对于优化所有通路的结果至关重要。需要进一步的大规模研究来验证这些发现并加强临床决策。
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
Kardiologiya
Kardiologiya 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: “Kardiologiya” (Cardiology) is a monthly scientific, peer-reviewed journal committed to both basic cardiovascular medicine and practical aspects of cardiology. As the leader in its field, “Kardiologiya” provides original coverage of recent progress in cardiovascular medicine. We publish state-of-the-art articles integrating clinical and research activities in the fields of basic cardiovascular science and clinical cardiology, with a focus on emerging issues in cardiovascular disease. Our target audience spans a diversity of health care professionals and medical researchers working in cardiovascular medicine and related fields. The principal language of the Journal is Russian, an additional language – English (title, authors’ information, abstract, keywords). “Kardiologiya” is a peer-reviewed scientific journal. All articles are reviewed by scientists, who gained high international prestige in cardiovascular science and clinical cardiology. The Journal is currently cited and indexed in major Abstracting & Indexing databases: Web of Science, Medline and Scopus. The Journal''s primary objectives Contribute to raising the professional level of medical researchers, physicians and academic teachers. Present the results of current research and clinical observations, explore the effectiveness of drug and non-drug treatments of heart disease, inform about new diagnostic techniques; discuss current trends and new advancements in clinical cardiology, contribute to continuing medical education, inform readers about results of Russian and international scientific forums; Further improve the general quality of reviewing and editing of manuscripts submitted for publication; Provide the widest possible dissemination of the published articles, among the global scientific community; Extend distribution and indexing of scientific publications in major Abstracting & Indexing databases.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信