Direct Comparison of Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Kyriakos Dimitriadis, Nikolaos Pyrpyris, Konstantinos Aznaouridis, Guillaume Bonnet, Eirini Beneki, Panagiotis Theofilis, Aristides Plaites, Alexios Antonopoulos, Christina Chrysohoou, Konstantinos Tsioufis
{"title":"Direct Comparison of Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Kyriakos Dimitriadis, Nikolaos Pyrpyris, Konstantinos Aznaouridis, Guillaume Bonnet, Eirini Beneki, Panagiotis Theofilis, Aristides Plaites, Alexios Antonopoulos, Christina Chrysohoou, Konstantinos Tsioufis","doi":"10.1002/ccd.70208","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Aortic stenosis (AS) may complicate cardiogenic shock (CS) or acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in a small but significant number of patients. In such cases, urgent treatment is necessary to prevent mortality and adverse outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) represent the main treatment options, however, limited studies have compared them directly. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesize available studies directly comparing urgent TAVI and BAV, in respect to reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for studies comparing outcomes in patients with CS or ADHF undergoing urgent TAVI or BAV. Followingly, a meta-analysis of all included studies was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of six studies, including 21,020 patients (10,597 patients undergoing TAVI and 10,423 patients undergoing BAV) were analyzed. Regarding in-hospital mortality, it was found to be significantly lower in patients undergoing urgent TAVI, compared to BAV (risk ratio [RR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32-0.87]. Moreover, urgent TAVI was also associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality at 30-days follow up (RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this meta-analysis of observational, retrospective studies including patients undergoing urgent transcatheter interventions for acute AS, TAVI is associated with significantly reduced in-hospital and 30-days mortality, in comparison to BAV. More larger studies, reporting extended follow-up and adverse events' rates, are needed to safely conclude regarding the benefit of urgent interventions in the acute care.</p>","PeriodicalId":520583,"journal":{"name":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.70208","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

Objective: Aortic stenosis (AS) may complicate cardiogenic shock (CS) or acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) in a small but significant number of patients. In such cases, urgent treatment is necessary to prevent mortality and adverse outcomes. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) represent the main treatment options, however, limited studies have compared them directly. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesize available studies directly comparing urgent TAVI and BAV, in respect to reported outcomes.

Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for studies comparing outcomes in patients with CS or ADHF undergoing urgent TAVI or BAV. Followingly, a meta-analysis of all included studies was performed.

Results: A total of six studies, including 21,020 patients (10,597 patients undergoing TAVI and 10,423 patients undergoing BAV) were analyzed. Regarding in-hospital mortality, it was found to be significantly lower in patients undergoing urgent TAVI, compared to BAV (risk ratio [RR]: 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.32-0.87]. Moreover, urgent TAVI was also associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality at 30-days follow up (RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84).

Conclusion: In this meta-analysis of observational, retrospective studies including patients undergoing urgent transcatheter interventions for acute AS, TAVI is associated with significantly reduced in-hospital and 30-days mortality, in comparison to BAV. More larger studies, reporting extended follow-up and adverse events' rates, are needed to safely conclude regarding the benefit of urgent interventions in the acute care.

经导管主动脉瓣植入术与球囊主动脉瓣成形术的直接比较:系统回顾和meta分析。
目的:主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)可能并发心源性休克(CS)或急性失代偿性心力衰竭(ADHF),但在少数患者中具有重要意义。在这种情况下,紧急治疗是必要的,以防止死亡和不良后果。经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)和球囊主动脉瓣成形术(BAV)是主要的治疗选择,然而,直接比较它们的研究有限。因此,本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在综合现有研究,直接比较紧急TAVI和BAV的报道结果。方法:我们系统地检索MEDLINE/PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science,以比较CS或ADHF患者接受紧急TAVI或BAV治疗的结果。随后,对所有纳入的研究进行荟萃分析。结果:共纳入6项研究,共纳入21,020例患者(TAVI患者10,597例,BAV患者10,423例)。急诊TAVI患者的住院死亡率明显低于BAV患者(风险比[RR]: 0.53; 95%可信区间(CI): 0.32-0.87)。此外,在30天随访中,紧急TAVI患者的全因死亡率也显著降低(RR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.31-0.84)。结论:在这项观察性、回顾性研究的荟萃分析中,包括因急性AS接受紧急经导管介入治疗的患者,与BAV相比,TAVI与显著降低住院死亡率和30天死亡率相关。需要更多更大规模的研究,报告延长随访和不良事件发生率,才能安全地得出关于紧急干预在急性护理中的益处的结论。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信