Meta-Analysis Comparing Renal Outcomes after Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Background. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of aortic valve replacement. However, comparative on the incidence of (AKI) following transcatheter (TAVR) versus surgical valve replacement (SAVR) is sparse. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCT) and propensity-matched observational studies comparing (A) incidence of AKI and (B) incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI at 30 days after TAVR and SAVR. Results. Twenty-six studies (20 propensity-matched studies; 6 RCTs) including 19,954 patients were analyzed. The incidence of AKI was lower after TAVR than after SAVR (7.1% vs. 12.1%, OR 0.52; 95%CI, 0.39-0.68; p<0.001, I2=57%), but the incidence of dialysis-requiring AKI was similar (2.8% vs. 4.1%, OR 0.78; 95%CI, 0.49-1.25; p=0.31, I2=70%). Similar results were observed in a sensitivity analysis including RCTs only for both AKI ([5 RCTs; 5,418 patients], 2.0% vs. 5.0%, OR 0.39; 95%CI, 0.28-0.53; p<0.001, I2=0%), and dialysis-requiring AKI ([2 RCTs; 769 patients]; 2.9% vs. 2.6%, OR 1.1; 95%CI, 0.47-2.58; p=0.83, I2=0%). However, in studies including low-intermediate risk patients only, TAVR was associated with lower incidence of AKI ([10 studies; 6,510 patients], 7.6% vs. 12.4%, OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.39-0.77, p<0.001, I2=57%), and dialysis-requiring AKI, ([10 studies; 12,034 patients], 2.0% vs. 3.6%, OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.38-0.85, p=0.005, I2=23%). Conclusions. TAVR is associated with better renal outcomes at 30 days in comparison with SAVR, especially in patients at low-intermediate surgical risk. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of AKI on long-term outcomes of patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR.

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate risk patients: A meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.727022510.793525830 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

John Augoustides

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Intermediate Risk ◽

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Risk Patients

Download Full-text

The International Society for Minimally Invasive Cardiothoracic Surgery Expert Consensus Statement on Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low- and Intermediate-Risk Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Propensity-Matched Studies

Innovations Technology and Techniques in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery ◽

10.1177/1556984520978316 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 155698452097831

Author(s):

Vinod H. Thourani ◽

J. James Edelman ◽

Sari D. Holmes ◽

Tom C. Nguyen ◽

John Carroll ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Early Mortality ◽

Low Risk ◽

Perioperative Outcomes ◽

Intermediate Risk ◽

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Risk Patients

Objective There is an increasing amount of evidence supporting use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for treatment of aortic stenosis in patients at low or intermediate risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVR is now approved for use in all patient cohorts. Despite this, there remains debate about the relative efficacy of TAVR compared with SAVR in lower-risk cohorts and various subgroups of patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched trials to guide a consensus among expert cardiologists and surgeons. Methods Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients were identified by a thorough search of the major databases. Mortality, stroke, and other perioperative outcomes were assessed at 30 days and 1 year. Results Early mortality was lower in TAVR compared to SAVR in RCTs, but not propensity-matched studies in low-risk cohorts (0.66% vs 1.5%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20 to 0.98, I2 = 0%). No difference in mortality between TAVR and SAVR was identified in intermediate-risk patients at early or later time points. Incidence of perioperative stroke in 3 low-risk RCTs was significantly lower in TAVR (0.4%) than SAVR (1.4%; OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.81, I2 = 0%). There was no difference in stroke for intermediate-risk patients between TAVR and SAVR. The expert panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons provided recommendations for TAVR and SAVR in various clinical scenarios. Conclusions In RCTs comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients, early mortality and stroke were lower in TAVR, but did not differ at 1 year. There was no difference in mortality and stroke in intermediate-risk patients. The Multidisciplinary Heart Team must consider individual patient characteristics and preferences when recommending TAVR or SAVR. The decision must consider the long-term management of each patient’s aortic valve disease.

Download Full-text