Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement versus Valve-In-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Reconstructed Time-To-Event Meta-Analysis.
biological prosthesis valve degeneration
long-term outcome
meta-analysis
redo surgical aortic valve replacement
valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Jan 2023
09 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
22
11
2022
revised:
21
12
2022
accepted:
29
12
2022
entrez:
21
1
2023
pubmed:
22
1
2023
medline:
22
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49−3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78−1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40−0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29−3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18−0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36675469
pii: jcm12020541
doi: 10.3390/jcm12020541
pmc: PMC9866823
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017 Jan;24(1):63-70
pubmed: 27624351
Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123-30
pubmed: 21603045
Trials. 2007 Jun 07;8:16
pubmed: 17555582
Heart. 2018 May;104(10):828-834
pubmed: 29352008
Int J Cardiol. 2020 May 1;306:25-34
pubmed: 32087937
Stata J. 2017 Oct;17(4):786-802
pubmed: 29398980
Ann Thorac Surg. 2015 Apr;99(4):1239-47
pubmed: 25662439
JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12
pubmed: 10789670
Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 Jul;106(1):14-22
pubmed: 29630873
JAMA. 2022 May 17;327(19):1875-1887
pubmed: 35579641
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2020 Mar 23;13(6):765-774
pubmed: 31954671
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Nov 1;98(5):940-947
pubmed: 34110684
Eur Heart J. 2020 Aug 1;41(29):2731-2742
pubmed: 32592401
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021 Jan 25;14(2):211-220
pubmed: 33478639
Neth Heart J. 2022 Feb;30(2):106-112
pubmed: 34373997
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022 May 2;61(5):977-987
pubmed: 34918068
Am J Cardiol. 2021 May 1;146:74-81
pubmed: 33529615
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Aug 4;76(5):489-499
pubmed: 32731926
N Engl J Med. 2016 Apr 28;374(17):1609-20
pubmed: 27040324
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Apr 3;71(13):1401-1412
pubmed: 29598859
N Engl J Med. 2019 May 2;380(18):1695-1705
pubmed: 30883058
Rev Esp Cardiol (Engl Ed). 2019 Oct;72(10):878-880
pubmed: 31133500
Stat Med. 2015 Sep 20;34(21):2881-98
pubmed: 26099573
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Nov 2;60(5):1139-1146
pubmed: 33942061
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Mar 9;77(9):1149-1161
pubmed: 33663731
Int J Cardiol. 2020 Feb 1;300:80-86
pubmed: 31740140
Ann Thorac Surg. 2021 Aug;112(2):539-545
pubmed: 33129775
Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Nov;102(5):1452-1458
pubmed: 27526654
EuroIntervention. 2022 Feb 18;17(15):1227-1237
pubmed: 34521614
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2022 Jul;100(1):122-130
pubmed: 35485723
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 May;149(5):1262-9.e3
pubmed: 25791947
N Engl J Med. 2020 Feb 27;382(9):799-809
pubmed: 31995682
Am J Cardiol. 2022 Jun 1;172:81-89
pubmed: 35351288
JAMA Cardiol. 2022 Oct 1;7(10):1000-1008
pubmed: 36001335
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Jan 5;77(1):1-14
pubmed: 33413929
J Card Surg. 2022 Jan;37(1):205-213
pubmed: 34697831
JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018 Jan 22;11(2):133-141
pubmed: 29348008
EuroIntervention. 2017 Nov 20;13(10):1149-1156
pubmed: 28760721
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Oct 22;60(4):727-800
pubmed: 34453161
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 4;72(22):2701-2711
pubmed: 30257798
N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 9;377(19):1847-1857
pubmed: 29117490
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021 Nov;35(11):3223-3231
pubmed: 34175205
Ann Thorac Surg. 2019 Aug;108(2):424-430
pubmed: 31055036