严重症状性主动脉瓣狭窄老年患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术的疗效比较:系统回顾。

IF 0.7 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Journal of the Saudi Heart Association Pub Date : 2024-09-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.37616/2212-5043.1393
Omar Hamodat, Saif Almuzainy, Salma Nizar
{"title":"严重症状性主动脉瓣狭窄老年患者经导管主动脉瓣置换术与外科主动脉瓣置换术的疗效比较:系统回顾。","authors":"Omar Hamodat, Saif Almuzainy, Salma Nizar","doi":"10.37616/2212-5043.1393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease globally; while transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a competitive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and revolutionized treatment, its safety and efficacy has yet to be comprehensively assessed against SAVR for certain subsets of aortic stenosis patients; therefore, this study aims to systematically analyze all the available clinical evidence from randomized clinical trials on TAVR versus SAVR among intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We performed a systematic review of the randomized controlled trials (RCT), studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a comprehensive search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A comprehensive screening of 14,384 records identified 9 studies, encompassing 8884 patients with a mean age of 77.76 years and 49.47% male. TAVR demonstrated a significantly lower all-cause mortality at both 30 days and 1 year compared to SAVR, with comparable outcomes at 2 years, underscoring its potential for enhanced survival. Stroke incidence was markedly lower with TAVR at both 30 days and 1 year, highlighting its favorable neurological safety profile. Additionally, TAVR showed a reduced rate of myocardial infarction within the initial 30 days post-procedure. Prosthetic valve endocarditis rates remained low and comparable between the two approaches at both 30 days and 1 year. Notably, TAVR was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, suggesting a faster recovery trajectory and improved patient throughput. These findings collectively emphasize the superior efficacy and safety profile of TAVR over SAVR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TAVR may serve as a viable therapeutic option for intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes and TAVR device durability, especially in younger, lower-risk populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":17319,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Saudi Heart Association","volume":"36 3","pages":"242-251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11517992/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Omar Hamodat, Saif Almuzainy, Salma Nizar\",\"doi\":\"10.37616/2212-5043.1393\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease globally; while transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a competitive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and revolutionized treatment, its safety and efficacy has yet to be comprehensively assessed against SAVR for certain subsets of aortic stenosis patients; therefore, this study aims to systematically analyze all the available clinical evidence from randomized clinical trials on TAVR versus SAVR among intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>We performed a systematic review of the randomized controlled trials (RCT), studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a comprehensive search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A comprehensive screening of 14,384 records identified 9 studies, encompassing 8884 patients with a mean age of 77.76 years and 49.47% male. TAVR demonstrated a significantly lower all-cause mortality at both 30 days and 1 year compared to SAVR, with comparable outcomes at 2 years, underscoring its potential for enhanced survival. Stroke incidence was markedly lower with TAVR at both 30 days and 1 year, highlighting its favorable neurological safety profile. Additionally, TAVR showed a reduced rate of myocardial infarction within the initial 30 days post-procedure. Prosthetic valve endocarditis rates remained low and comparable between the two approaches at both 30 days and 1 year. Notably, TAVR was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, suggesting a faster recovery trajectory and improved patient throughput. These findings collectively emphasize the superior efficacy and safety profile of TAVR over SAVR.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>TAVR may serve as a viable therapeutic option for intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes and TAVR device durability, especially in younger, lower-risk populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Saudi Heart Association\",\"volume\":\"36 3\",\"pages\":\"242-251\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11517992/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Saudi Heart Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37616/2212-5043.1393\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Saudi Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37616/2212-5043.1393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:主动脉瓣狭窄是全球最常见的瓣膜性心脏病:主动脉瓣狭窄是全球最常见的瓣膜性心脏病;虽然经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)已被证明是手术主动脉瓣置换术(SAVR)的一种有竞争力的替代方法,并为治疗带来了革命性的变化,但对于某些主动脉瓣狭窄患者亚群,其安全性和有效性仍有待与 SAVR 进行全面评估;因此,本研究旨在系统分析在中低风险重度症状性主动脉瓣狭窄患者中进行 TAVR 与 SAVR 比较的随机临床试验的所有可用临床证据。研究方法:我们对随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统回顾,通过对主要数据库的全面检索,确定了在中低风险患者中比较 TAVR 和 SAVR 的研究。对死亡率、中风、住院时间和其他围手术期结果进行了评估:结果:通过对 14384 条记录的全面筛选,确定了 9 项研究,涉及 8884 名患者,平均年龄 77.76 岁,男性占 49.47%。与 SAVR 相比,TAVR 在 30 天和 1 年内的全因死亡率明显降低,2 年内的结果也相当,这突显了其提高生存率的潜力。TAVR术后30天和1年的中风发生率都明显降低,突出了其良好的神经系统安全性。此外,TAVR 还降低了术后最初 30 天内的心肌梗死发生率。人工瓣膜心内膜炎发生率仍然很低,两种方法在术后 30 天和 1 年内的发生率相当。值得注意的是,TAVR 的住院时间明显更短,这表明患者的恢复速度更快,患者吞吐量更高。这些发现共同强调了 TAVR 比 SAVR 更优越的疗效和安全性:结论:TAVR可作为严重症状性主动脉瓣狭窄的中低风险患者的可行治疗方案。未来的研究应重点关注长期疗效和TAVR设备的耐用性,尤其是在年轻的低风险人群中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Elderly Patients With Severe Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease globally; while transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has proven to be a competitive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and revolutionized treatment, its safety and efficacy has yet to be comprehensively assessed against SAVR for certain subsets of aortic stenosis patients; therefore, this study aims to systematically analyze all the available clinical evidence from randomized clinical trials on TAVR versus SAVR among intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

Methodology: We performed a systematic review of the randomized controlled trials (RCT), studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a comprehensive search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, length of stay, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed.

Results: A comprehensive screening of 14,384 records identified 9 studies, encompassing 8884 patients with a mean age of 77.76 years and 49.47% male. TAVR demonstrated a significantly lower all-cause mortality at both 30 days and 1 year compared to SAVR, with comparable outcomes at 2 years, underscoring its potential for enhanced survival. Stroke incidence was markedly lower with TAVR at both 30 days and 1 year, highlighting its favorable neurological safety profile. Additionally, TAVR showed a reduced rate of myocardial infarction within the initial 30 days post-procedure. Prosthetic valve endocarditis rates remained low and comparable between the two approaches at both 30 days and 1 year. Notably, TAVR was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay, suggesting a faster recovery trajectory and improved patient throughput. These findings collectively emphasize the superior efficacy and safety profile of TAVR over SAVR.

Conclusion: TAVR may serve as a viable therapeutic option for intermediate and low-risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis. Future research should focus on long-term outcomes and TAVR device durability, especially in younger, lower-risk populations.

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
Journal of the Saudi Heart Association
Journal of the Saudi Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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