经导管与手术主动脉瓣置换术后≥5年死亡率的meta分析。

H. Takagi, Y. Hari, Kouki Nakashima, T. Kuno, T. Ando
{"title":"经导管与手术主动脉瓣置换术后≥5年死亡率的meta分析。","authors":"H. Takagi, Y. Hari, Kouki Nakashima, T. Kuno, T. Ando","doi":"10.23736/S0021-9509.19.11030-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nIt remains unclear whether long-term survival is superior following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) than following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We performed a meta-analysis of mortality with ≥5-year follow- up in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies of TAVI versus SAVR.\n\n\nMETHODS\nMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through March 2019. Eligible studies were RCTs or PSM studies of TAVI versus SAVR enrolling patients with severe aortic stenosis and reporting all- cause mortality with ≥5-year follow-up as an outcome. A hazard ratio of mortality for TAVI versus SAVR was extracted from each individual study.\n\n\nRESULTS\nStudy-specific estimates were combined in the random-effects model. Our search identified 3 RCTs and 7 PSM studies enrolling 5498 patients. A pooled analysis of all 10 studies demonstrated a statistically significant 38% increase in mortality with TAVI relative to SAVR. A subgroup meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between TAVI and AVR in RCTs and a statistically significant 68% increase with TAVI relative to SAVR in PSM studies.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nOn the basis of a meta-analysis of 7 PSM studies, TAVI is associated with greater all-cause mortality with ≥5-year follow-up than SAVR. However, another meta-analysis of 3 RCTs suggests no difference in mortality between TAVI and SAVR.","PeriodicalId":101333,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A meta-analysis of ≥5-year mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement.\",\"authors\":\"H. Takagi, Y. Hari, Kouki Nakashima, T. Kuno, T. Ando\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S0021-9509.19.11030-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nIt remains unclear whether long-term survival is superior following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) than following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We performed a meta-analysis of mortality with ≥5-year follow- up in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies of TAVI versus SAVR.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through March 2019. Eligible studies were RCTs or PSM studies of TAVI versus SAVR enrolling patients with severe aortic stenosis and reporting all- cause mortality with ≥5-year follow-up as an outcome. A hazard ratio of mortality for TAVI versus SAVR was extracted from each individual study.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nStudy-specific estimates were combined in the random-effects model. Our search identified 3 RCTs and 7 PSM studies enrolling 5498 patients. A pooled analysis of all 10 studies demonstrated a statistically significant 38% increase in mortality with TAVI relative to SAVR. A subgroup meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between TAVI and AVR in RCTs and a statistically significant 68% increase with TAVI relative to SAVR in PSM studies.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nOn the basis of a meta-analysis of 7 PSM studies, TAVI is associated with greater all-cause mortality with ≥5-year follow-up than SAVR. However, another meta-analysis of 3 RCTs suggests no difference in mortality between TAVI and SAVR.\",\"PeriodicalId\":101333,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.19.11030-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of cardiovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0021-9509.19.11030-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:目前尚不清楚经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)是否比外科主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)的长期生存率更高。我们对TAVI与SAVR的随机对照试验(rct)和倾向评分匹配(PSM)研究中随访≥5年的死亡率进行了荟萃分析。方法检索截至2019年3月的medline、EMBASE和Cochrane中央对照试验登记册。符合条件的研究是TAVI与SAVR的rct或PSM研究,纳入严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者,报告全因死亡率,随访≥5年。从每个单独的研究中提取TAVI与SAVR的死亡率风险比。结果在随机效应模型中合并了特定研究的估计值。我们检索了3项随机对照试验和7项PSM研究,共纳入5498例患者。对所有10项研究的汇总分析显示,TAVI的死亡率相对于SAVR增加了38%,具有统计学意义。亚组荟萃分析显示,rct中TAVI和AVR之间无统计学差异,而PSM研究中TAVI相对于SAVR增加68%具有统计学意义。结论:在7项PSM研究的荟萃分析的基础上,TAVI与随访≥5年的全因死亡率相关。然而,另一项对3项随机对照试验的荟萃分析显示,TAVI和SAVR之间的死亡率没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A meta-analysis of ≥5-year mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement.
BACKGROUND It remains unclear whether long-term survival is superior following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) than following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We performed a meta-analysis of mortality with ≥5-year follow- up in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-score matched (PSM) studies of TAVI versus SAVR. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through March 2019. Eligible studies were RCTs or PSM studies of TAVI versus SAVR enrolling patients with severe aortic stenosis and reporting all- cause mortality with ≥5-year follow-up as an outcome. A hazard ratio of mortality for TAVI versus SAVR was extracted from each individual study. RESULTS Study-specific estimates were combined in the random-effects model. Our search identified 3 RCTs and 7 PSM studies enrolling 5498 patients. A pooled analysis of all 10 studies demonstrated a statistically significant 38% increase in mortality with TAVI relative to SAVR. A subgroup meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between TAVI and AVR in RCTs and a statistically significant 68% increase with TAVI relative to SAVR in PSM studies. CONCLUSIONS On the basis of a meta-analysis of 7 PSM studies, TAVI is associated with greater all-cause mortality with ≥5-year follow-up than SAVR. However, another meta-analysis of 3 RCTs suggests no difference in mortality between TAVI and SAVR.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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