Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and active cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
aortic valve disease
malignancy
percutaneous valve therapy
quality of care and outcomes
Journal
Open heart
ISSN: 2053-3624
Titre abrégé: Open Heart
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101631219
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
04
07
2019
revised:
16
01
2020
accepted:
20
02
2020
entrez:
24
3
2020
pubmed:
24
3
2020
medline:
24
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant active cancer (AC) are considered high-risk patients and usually are not allowed to undergo surgical valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be an attractive option for them; however, little is known about the outcomes of TAVR in this subset of complex patients. In this meta-analysis, Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were searched (anytime up to April 2019) for studies evaluating the outcomes of TAVR in patients with or without AC. We assessed pooled estimates (with their 95% CIs) of the risk ratio (RR) for the all-cause mortality at the 30-day and 1-year follow-ups, a 4-point safety outcome (any bleeding, stroke, need for a pacemaker and acute kidney injury) and a 2-point efficacy outcome (device success and residual mean gradient (mean difference)). Three studies (5162 patients) were included. Of those patients, a total of 368 (7.1%) had AC. Apart from a significantly higher need for a postprocedural pacemaker (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.58, p=0.01), TAVR in patients with AC resulted in similar outcomes for safety and efficacy at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without AC. Patients with AC experienced similar rates of the all-cause mortality at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.59, p=0.76); however, the all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients with AC at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.33, p=0.0006). This mortality difference was independent of cancer stage (advanced or limited) at the 30-day follow-up but not at the 1-year follow-up; only patients with limited cancer stages showed similar all-cause mortality rates compared with those without cancer at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.91, p=0.37). TAVR in patients with AC is associated with similar 30-day and potentially worse 1-year outcomes compared with those in patients without AC. The 1-year all-cause mortality appears to be dependent on the cancer stage. Involving a specialised oncologist who usually considers cancer stage in the decision-making process and applying additional preoperative scores such as frailty indices might refine the risk assessment process among these patients. CRD42019120416.
Sections du résumé
Background
Patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant active cancer (AC) are considered high-risk patients and usually are not allowed to undergo surgical valve replacement. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be an attractive option for them; however, little is known about the outcomes of TAVR in this subset of complex patients.
Methods and results
In this meta-analysis, Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus databases were searched (anytime up to April 2019) for studies evaluating the outcomes of TAVR in patients with or without AC. We assessed pooled estimates (with their 95% CIs) of the risk ratio (RR) for the all-cause mortality at the 30-day and 1-year follow-ups, a 4-point safety outcome (any bleeding, stroke, need for a pacemaker and acute kidney injury) and a 2-point efficacy outcome (device success and residual mean gradient (mean difference)). Three studies (5162 patients) were included. Of those patients, a total of 368 (7.1%) had AC. Apart from a significantly higher need for a postprocedural pacemaker (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.58, p=0.01), TAVR in patients with AC resulted in similar outcomes for safety and efficacy at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without AC. Patients with AC experienced similar rates of the all-cause mortality at the 30-day follow-up compared with those without (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.59, p=0.76); however, the all-cause mortality was significantly higher in patients with AC at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.33, p=0.0006). This mortality difference was independent of cancer stage (advanced or limited) at the 30-day follow-up but not at the 1-year follow-up; only patients with limited cancer stages showed similar all-cause mortality rates compared with those without cancer at the 1-year follow-up (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.91, p=0.37).
Conclusion
TAVR in patients with AC is associated with similar 30-day and potentially worse 1-year outcomes compared with those in patients without AC. The 1-year all-cause mortality appears to be dependent on the cancer stage. Involving a specialised oncologist who usually considers cancer stage in the decision-making process and applying additional preoperative scores such as frailty indices might refine the risk assessment process among these patients.
PROSPERO registration number
CRD42019120416.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32201582
doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2019-001131
pii: openhrt-2019-001131
pmc: PMC7066604
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e001131Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Am J Cardiol. 2016 Aug 15;118(4):572-7
pubmed: 27324159
Lancet. 2015 Jun 20;385(9986):2477-84
pubmed: 25788234
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Nov 13;50(20):2018-9
pubmed: 17996571
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 Jul 14;66(2):113-21
pubmed: 26055947
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2017 Aug 24;17(1):234
pubmed: 28836953
EuroIntervention. 2014 Sep;10(5):609-19
pubmed: 25136880
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jan 14;12(1):78-86
pubmed: 30621982
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Oct 1;52(4):616-664
pubmed: 29156023
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Heart Lung Circ. 2012 May;21(5):255-9
pubmed: 22386614
N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 28;374(17):1609-20
pubmed: 27040324
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Oct 9;60(15):1438-54
pubmed: 23036636
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Dec 19;14:135
pubmed: 25524443
Am Heart J. 2011 Jun;161(6):1125-32
pubmed: 21641359
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Sep 1;94(3):438-445
pubmed: 30549397
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
Eur Heart J. 2016 Sep 21;37(36):2768-2801
pubmed: 27567406
Europace. 2009 Dec;11(12):1579-86
pubmed: 19801562
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 Jan 14;12(1):87-89
pubmed: 30621983
Eur Heart J. 2014 Sep 14;35(35):2383-431
pubmed: 25086026
Lancet Oncol. 2013 May;14(6):461-71
pubmed: 23602601
JAMA. 2014 Apr 16;311(15):1503-14
pubmed: 24682026
J Interv Cardiol. 2018 Apr;31(2):188-196
pubmed: 29166702
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2009 Aug 1;74(2):225-31
pubmed: 19434744
J Support Oncol. 2013 Jun;11(2):68-74
pubmed: 23967494
Leuk Res. 1999 Jan;23(1):71-5
pubmed: 9933138
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120