ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve stenosis (TAV) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsA computer-based search in PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases from their date of inception to March 2019 was conducted. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted data and evaluated their quality. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 softwares were used for meta-analysis.ResultsThe selected 15 cohort studies contained 45 770 patients, including 1 500 of BAV patients and 44 270 of TAV patients. The results showed that no statistical difference was found in postoperative in-hospital mortality [OR=1.29, 95%CI (0.91, 1.83), P=0.15], 30-day mortality [OR=1.23, 95%CI (0.86, 1.77), P=0.25], and 1-year mortality [OR=1.14, 95%CI (0.87, 1.50), P=0.33] between the two groups. The surgical success rate [OR=0.57, 95%CI (0.44, 0.74), P<0.01], postoperative bleeding events [OR=0.72, 95%CI (0.58, 0.91), P<0.01] and postoperative vascular injury [OR=0.68, 95%CI (0.47, 0.97), P=0.03] of patients in the BAV group were lower than those in the TAV group. The incidence of paravalvular leak in the BAV group was higher than that in the TAV group [OR=1.47, 95%CI (1.13, 1.90), P<0.01]. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of conversion to surgery, postoperative myocardial infarction, postoperative renal failure, postoperative neurologic events, postoperative valve gradient difference and pacemaker implantation.ConclusionCompared with TAV, the application of TAVR in BAV patients is feasible and effective.
ObjectiveTo compare the complications of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) between aortic valve stenosis (AS) patients ≥90 years and patients <90 years, and to explore the efficacy and safety of TAVR in AS patients ≥90 years.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang Data and China Biology Medicine disc (CBMdisc) were searched by computer from inception to May 2019. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the quality of the included studies. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 were used for meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 12 cohort studies were included, including60 186 patients (11 350 patients ≥90 years and 48 836 patients <90 years). Meta-analysis showed that compared with the patients <90 years, those ≥90 years had higher all-cause mortality in the hospital (OR=1.51, 95%CI 1.37 to 1.66, P<0.000 01),on postoperative 30 d (OR=1.68, 95%CI 1.50 to 1.89, P<0.000 01) and at postoperative 1 year (OR=1.36, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.48, P<0.000 01), and had higher incidence of stroke (OR=1.31, 95%CI 1.18 to 1.46, P<0.000 01), bleeding events (OR=1.14, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.20, P<0.000 01) and vascular complications (OR=1.31, 95%CI 1.18 to 1.46, P<0.000 01). ConclusionAll-cause mortality and the incidence of some complications after TAVR in AS patients ≥90 years are higher than those in patients <90 years, but this difference is clinically acceptable. Therefore, TAVR treatment is safe and effective for elderly patients.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the clinical outcome of patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsElectronic search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang and CBM databases to identify studies about the new-onset LBBB after TAVR from inception to March 19, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 15.0 software.ResultsA total of 17 cohort studies were included, covering 9 205 patients, including 2 202 patients with new-onset LBBB and 7 003 without new-onset LBBB after TAVR. The results of meta-analysis showed that patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVR at 30-day (RR=1.65, 95%CI 1.30 to 2.10, P<0.001) and 1-year (RR=1.30, 95%CI 1.16 to 1.45, P<0.001) all-cause mortality was higher than no new-onset LBBB group. One-year cardiovascular mortality was higher in the new-onset LBBB group (RR=1.47, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.79, P<0.001). In the occurrence of 30-day (RR=1.51, 95%CI 1.10 to 2.08, P=0.011) and 1-year (RR=1.34, 95%CI 1.14 to 1.58, P=0.001) rehospitalization rate, 30-day (RR=3.05, 95% CI 1.49 to 6.22, P=0.002) and 1-year (RR=2.15, 95%CI 1.52 to 3.03, P<0.001) pacemaker implantation, the incidence of patients with new-onset LBBB was higher than that of the no new-onset LBBB group.ConclusionCompared with the patients without LBBB after TAVR, the clinical prognosis of patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVR is poor. In the future, the management and follow-up of the patients with LBBB after TAVR should be further strengthened to improve the prognosis of patients.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the impact of chronic kidney disease (CKD) at different stages on prognosis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).MethodsDatabases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) were searched by computer to collect cohort studies on impact of different stages of CKD on prognosis of TAVR from inception to July 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies, and then, meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 15.0 software. Risk of study bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).ResultsA total of 17 cohort studies were included with NOS score≥6 points. The results of meta-analysis indicated that: compared with the patients without CKD, all-cause mortality of CKD stage 3 patients at 30 day (RR=1.29, 95%CI 1.22-1.37, P<0.001) and 1 year (RR=1.24, 95%CI 1.19-1.28, P<0.001), all-cause mortality of CKD stage 4 patients at 30 day (RR=2.10, 95%CI 1.90-2.31, P<0.001) and 1 year (RR=1.89, 95%CI 1.62-2.19, P<0.001), and all-cause mortality of CKD stage 5 patients at 30 day (RR=2.22, 95%CI 1.62-2.19, P<0.001) and 1 year (RR=2.24, 95%CI 1.75-2.87, P<0.001) were significantly increased and were associated with the severity of CKD. The occurrence rates of 1-year cardiovascular mortality, postoperative acute kidney injury and bleeding events were all higher in patients with CKD.ConclusionCKD at stages 3, 4 and 5 is associated with increased all-cause mortality after TAVR, and the higher the stage of CKD is, the higher the risk of all-cause mortality at 30-day and 1-year follow-up is. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate the therapeutic effects of different surgical procedures for ischemic mitral regurgitation (IMR). MethodsComputer searches were conducted in CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, and Web of Science, with the search time limit from the inception of the databases to February 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, used the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and used Stata 17.0 software to analyze the data. ResultsA total of 19 randomized controlled trials involving 6139 patients were finally included, involving six surgical procedures, and the overall quality of the included studies was relatively high. The results of the network Meta-analysis showed that the 30-day all-cause mortality rate of mitral valve repair (MVr) was significantly lower than that of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) [OR=0.24, 95%CI (0.07, 0.87)], mitral valve replacement (MVR) [OR=0.43, 95%CI (0.23, 0.79)], CABG+MVR [OR=0.21, 95%CI (0.04, 0.95)] and transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair (TEER) using MitraClip [OR=0.13, 95%CI (0.02, 0.87)]. The 30-day all-cause mortality rate of CABG+MVr was significantly lower than that of CABG [OR=0.56, 95%CI (0.33, 0.93)] and CABG+MVR [OR=0.48, 95%CI (0.24, 0.94)], and the best probability ranking results showed that MVR might be the most effective in reducing the 30-day all-cause mortality rate. The incidence of renal complications in CABG+MVr was significantly lower than that in CABG+MVR [OR=0.42, 95%CI (0.21, 0.83)]; the best probability ranking results showed that CABG+MVr might be the most effective in reducing renal complications. ConclusionThe current limited evidence suggests that CABG+MVr and MVR may be the best surgical intervention methods for IMR patients at present. Due to the limitations of the number and quality of included studies, the above conclusions still need to be verified by more high-quality studies.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TFTAVR) under local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA). MethodsElectronic databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang and CBM were searched to collect randomized controlled trial and cohort studies on clinical outcomes of TFTAVR under LA and GA from inception to September 2020. Two authors independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the quality of studies, and a meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0 software. ResultsA total of 30 studies involving 52 087 patients were included in this study. There were 18 719 patients in the LA group and 33 368 patients in the GA group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the in-hospital all-cause mortality rate [RR=0.65, 95%CI (0.45, 0.94), P=0.021], 30-day all-cause mortality rate [RR=0.73, 95%CI (0.62, 0.86), P＜0.001], 30-day stroke [RR=0.82, 95%CI (0.68, 0.98), P=0.025], cardiac arrest [RR=0.50, 95%CI (0.34, 0.73), P＜0.001], ICU stay time [RR=−6.86, 95%CI (−12.31, −1.42), P=0.013], and total hospital stay time [RR=−2.02, 95%CI (−2.59, −1.45), P＜0.001] in the LA group were all better than those in the GA group. There was no significant difference in the in-hospital stroke [RR=0.83, 95%CI (0.69, 1.00), P=0.053], in-hospital myocardial infarction (MI) [RR=1.74, 95%CI (0.43, 7.00), P=0.434], or 30-day MI [RR=0.77, 95%CI (0.42, 1.42), P=0.404] between the two groups. ConclusionLA provides a safe and effective way to induce sedation without intubation, and may be a good alternative to GA for TFTAVR.