I. Gede, Andrika Indrayoga Senthanu, Dewa Ayu, Agung Maya, Gayatri, Gede Andrika, Indrayoga Senthanu
{"title":"高风险主动脉瓣狭窄患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术 (TAVR) 与外科主动脉瓣置换术 (SAVR) 的长期疗效比较:一项元分析","authors":"I. Gede, Andrika Indrayoga Senthanu, Dewa Ayu, Agung Maya, Gayatri, Gede Andrika, Indrayoga Senthanu","doi":"10.37275/oaijmr.v4i3.600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This meta-analysis aims to compare the long-term outcomes of TAVR and SAVR in this population. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing TAVR and SAVR with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and rehospitalization. Twenty-three studies involving 15,482 patients (TAVR=7,785, SAVR=7,697) were included. The mean follow-up period was 3.2 years (range 1-5 years). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between TAVR and SAVR (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.09, p=0.63). Similarly, there were no differences in cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96-1.15, p=0.28), stroke (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.10, p=0.75), or MI (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82-1.08, p=0.39). However, TAVR was associated with a lower rate of rehospitalization (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.93, p=0.001). TAVR is a viable alternative to SAVR in high-risk patients with AS, demonstrating comparable long-term survival and safety outcomes. The reduced rehospitalization rate associated with TAVR may be an important consideration for these patients.","PeriodicalId":106715,"journal":{"name":"Open Access Indonesian Journal of Medical Reviews","volume":"26 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-Term Comparative Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) in High-Risk Aortic Stenosis Patients: A Meta-Analysis\",\"authors\":\"I. Gede, Andrika Indrayoga Senthanu, Dewa Ayu, Agung Maya, Gayatri, Gede Andrika, Indrayoga Senthanu\",\"doi\":\"10.37275/oaijmr.v4i3.600\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This meta-analysis aims to compare the long-term outcomes of TAVR and SAVR in this population. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing TAVR and SAVR with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and rehospitalization. Twenty-three studies involving 15,482 patients (TAVR=7,785, SAVR=7,697) were included. The mean follow-up period was 3.2 years (range 1-5 years). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between TAVR and SAVR (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.09, p=0.63). Similarly, there were no differences in cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96-1.15, p=0.28), stroke (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.10, p=0.75), or MI (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82-1.08, p=0.39). However, TAVR was associated with a lower rate of rehospitalization (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.93, p=0.001). TAVR is a viable alternative to SAVR in high-risk patients with AS, demonstrating comparable long-term survival and safety outcomes. The reduced rehospitalization rate associated with TAVR may be an important consideration for these patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":106715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Access Indonesian Journal of Medical Reviews\",\"volume\":\"26 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Access Indonesian Journal of Medical Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37275/oaijmr.v4i3.600\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Access Indonesian Journal of Medical Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37275/oaijmr.v4i3.600","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)已成为严重主动脉瓣狭窄(AS)高风险患者手术主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)的替代方案。本荟萃分析旨在比较 TAVR 和 SAVR 在这一人群中的长期疗效。截至 2023 年 12 月,我们对 PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆进行了系统检索。研究纳入了比较 TAVR 和 SAVR 的随机对照试验 (RCT) 和随访至少一年的观察性研究。主要结果为全因死亡率。次要结果包括心血管死亡率、中风、心肌梗死(MI)和再次住院。共纳入 23 项研究,涉及 15,482 名患者(TAVR=7,785 人,SAVR=7,697 人)。平均随访时间为 3.2 年(1-5 年不等)。TAVR 和 SAVR 的全因死亡率无明显差异(危险比 [HR] 1.02,95% CI 0.95-1.09,P=0.63)。同样,心血管死亡率(HR 1.05,95% CI 0.96-1.15,p=0.28)、中风(HR 0.98,95% CI 0.87-1.10,p=0.75)或心肌梗死(HR 0.94,95% CI 0.82-1.08,p=0.39)也没有差异。然而,TAVR与较低的再住院率相关(HR 0.85,95% CI 0.78-0.93,P=0.001)。对于高危强直性脊柱炎患者来说,TAVR是SAVR的可行替代方案,其长期生存率和安全性与SAVR相当。TAVR降低的再住院率可能是这些患者的一个重要考虑因素。
Long-Term Comparative Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR) in High-Risk Aortic Stenosis Patients: A Meta-Analysis
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This meta-analysis aims to compare the long-term outcomes of TAVR and SAVR in this population. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to December 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing TAVR and SAVR with a minimum follow-up of one year were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and rehospitalization. Twenty-three studies involving 15,482 patients (TAVR=7,785, SAVR=7,697) were included. The mean follow-up period was 3.2 years (range 1-5 years). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between TAVR and SAVR (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.95-1.09, p=0.63). Similarly, there were no differences in cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96-1.15, p=0.28), stroke (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.10, p=0.75), or MI (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82-1.08, p=0.39). However, TAVR was associated with a lower rate of rehospitalization (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.93, p=0.001). TAVR is a viable alternative to SAVR in high-risk patients with AS, demonstrating comparable long-term survival and safety outcomes. The reduced rehospitalization rate associated with TAVR may be an important consideration for these patients.