scholarly journals Long-term outcomes of sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Williams ◽  
Campbell D. Flynn ◽  
Andrew A. Mamo ◽  
David H. Tian ◽  
Utz Kappert ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sagar Ranka ◽  
Shubham Lahan ◽  
Adnan K. Chhatriwalla ◽  
Keith B. Allen ◽  
Sadhika Verma ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectivesThis study aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes following various alternative access routes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsThirty-four studies with a pooled sample size of 30,986 records were selected by searching PubMed and Cochrane library databases from inception through 11th June 2021 for patients undergoing TAVR via 1 of 6 different access sites: Transfemoral (TF), Transaortic (TAO), Transapical (TA), Transcarotid (TC), Transaxillary/Subclavian (TSA), and Transcaval (TCV). Data extracted from these studies were used to conduct a frequentist network meta-analysis with a random-effects model using TF access as a reference group.ResultsCompared with TF, both TAO [RR 1.91, 95% CI (1.46–2.50)] and TA access [RR 2.12, 95%CI (1.84–2.46)] were associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality. No significant difference was observed for stroke, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, conversion to open surgery, and major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events in the short-term (≤ 30 days). Major vascular complications were lower in TA [RR 0.43, (95% CI, 0.28-0.67)] and TC [RR 0.51, 95% CI (0.35-0.73)] access compared to TF. The 1-year mortality was higher in the TAO [RR of 1.35, (95% CI, 1.01–1.81)] and TA [RR 1.44, (95% CI, 1.14–1.81)] groups.ConclusionNon-thoracic alternative access site utilization for TAVR implantation (TC, TSA and TCV) is associated with similar outcomes to conventional TF access. Thoracic TAVR access (TAO and TA) is associated with increased short and long-term mortality.


2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (04) ◽  
pp. 282-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Glaser ◽  
Veronica Jackson ◽  
Anders Franco-Cereceda ◽  
Ulrik Sartipy

Background Bovine and porcine bioprostheses are commonly used for surgical aortic valve replacement. It is unknown if the long-term survival differs between the two valve types.We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare survival in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement and received a bovine or a porcine prosthesis. Methods We performed a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Cohort studies that compared survival between patients who underwent aortic valve replacement and received either a bovine or a porcine bioprosthesis and that reported overall long-term survival with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were included. Two authors independently reviewed articles considered for inclusion, extracted the information from each study, and performed the quality assessment. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to calculate the pooled HR (95% CI) for all-cause mortality. We did sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings. Results Seven studies published between 2010 and 2015 were included, and the combined study population was 49,190 patients. Of these, 32,235 (66%) received a bovine, and 16,955 (34%) received a porcine bioprosthesis. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between patients who received a bovine compared with a porcine bioprosthesis (pooled HR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.92–1.09). Heterogeneity between studies was moderate (55.8%, p = 0.04). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest no difference in survival between patients who received a bovine versus a porcine bioprosthesis after aortic valve replacement. Our study provides valuable evidence for the continuing use of both bovine and porcine bioprosthetic valves for surgical aortic valve replacement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document