Safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement through different approaches: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- VernacularTitle:不同路径行经导管主动脉瓣置换术安全性的系统评价与 Meta 分析
- Author:
Libo JIN
1
,
2
;
Hao WU
3
;
Weizhong FENG
1
,
2
;
Peng XU
1
,
2
;
Yong ZENG
1
,
2
;
Junqing ZHOU
1
,
2
Author Information
1. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shaoxing People'
2. s Hospital, Shaoxing, 312000, Zhejiang, P.R.China
3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Hospital of Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, 310015, P.R.China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR);
transfemoral;
transapical;
transsubclavian;
systematic review/meta-analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Clinical Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
2021;28(07):765-776
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To evaluate the early and mid-term safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement via transfemoral (TF), transapical (TAp) and transsubclavian (TSc) approaches by meta-analysis. Methods We systematically searched the clinical comparative trials published from inception to June 2019 from PubMed, Web of Science, EMbase and The Cochrane Library, to evaluate the safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement through TF, TAp or TSc approaches. The information of all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years and the incidence of common complications at 30 days after operation (including pacemaker-dependent block, major vascular complications, severe bleeding events, acute renal injury and stroke) were exacted, and a meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. Results This study included 11 literatures, with a total of 7 833 patients, among whom 5 348 patients were treated by TF TAVR, 1 796 patients by TAp TAVR and 689 patients by TSc TAVR. The results of the meta-analysis were as follows: (1) at 30 days after operation, the mortality of TF and TSc approaches were lower than that of the TAp approach (TF vs. TAp:OR=0.57, 95%CI 0.39-0.84, P=0.004; TSc vs. TAp: OR=4.12, 95%CI 1.93-8.79, P=0.000 3). There was no statistical difference between the TF and TSc approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.98, 95%CI 0.38-2.51, P=0.97); at 1 year, there was no statistical difference in mortality among the three approaches (P>0.05); at 2 years, there was no statistical difference between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=1.21, 95%CI 0.95-1.54, P=0.13; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.02, 95%CI 0.76-1.36, P=0.91). (2) The incidence of acute kidney injury after TF approach was lower than that of the TAp approach (OR=0.30, 95%CI 0.22-0.41, P<0.000 01). (3) There was no statistical difference in major vascular complications between TSc and TF or TAp approaches (TF vs. TSc: OR=0.75, 95%CI 0.38-1.49, P=0.41; TSc vs. TAp: OR=1.37, 95%CI 0.56-3.32, P=0.49). (4) There was no statistical difference in severe bleeding events between TF and TSc (OR=0.97, 95%CI 0.53-1.76, P=0.92). (5) There was no statistical difference in the incidence of postoperative stroke, pacemaker dependent block among the three approaches (P>0.05). Conclusion TAp and TSc approaches are safe and effective. They are not only an alternative to TF approach, but also the first choice in some patients with poor condition of iliofemoral artery.
