ObjectiveTo evaluate the early and mid-term safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement via transfemoral (TF), transapical (TAp) and transsubclavian (TSc) approaches by meta-analysis.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThis 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).ConclusionTAp 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.
Mitral regurgitation (MR) is the most common valvular heart disease, however, majority of patients are not suitable for open heart surgery due to comorbidity such as organ and heart dysfunction. Transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair has become an effective treatment option for high-risk patients with MR. Two patients were enrolled in this study inlcuding one 60-year degenerative mitral regurgitation patient and one 72-year functional mitral regurgitation patient. Transcatheter repair procedure was successfully done for the two patients without postoperative complication.
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.
Objective To assess early clinical safety and efficacy of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) for pure aortic regurgitation (PAR). Methods The clinical data of PAR patients who underwent TAVR in Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital and Wuhan Asia General Hospital from January 2018 to October 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into a TF-TAVR group and a transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR) group. The clinical data of the patients were analyzed. Results A total of 54 patients were enrolled, including 34 males and 20 females with an average age of 74.43±6.87 years. The preoperative N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was lower [808.50 (143.50, 2 937.00) pg/mL vs. 2 245.00 (486.30, 7 177.50) pg/mL, P=0.015], and the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (56.00±6.92 mm vs. 63.07±10.23 mm, P=0.005) and sinus junction diameter (32.47±4.41 mm vs. 37.65±8.08 mm, P=0.007) were smaller in the TF-TAVR group. There was no death in the two groups during the hospitalization. Only 1 new death within postoperative 1 month in the TF-TAVR group (cerebral hemorrhage). A total of 2 new deaths in the TF-TAVR group (1 patient of sudden cardiac death and 1 of multiple organ failure), and there was no death in the TA-TAVR group within postoperative 3 months. There was 1 new death in the TA-TAVR group (details unknown), and there was no death in the TF-TAVR group within postoperative 6 months. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in the all-cause mortality and the cumulative survival rate during the follow-up period (P>0.05). The incidence of high atrioventricular block was 36.0% in the TF-TAVR group and 10.3% in the TA-TAVR group (P=0.024). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the perivalvular leakage (≥moderate), valve in valve, a second valve implantation, valve migration, cerebrovascular events, major vascular complications, complete left bundle branch block, new permanent pacemaker implantation or transferring to surgery (P>0.05). However, the incidence rates of complete left bundle branch block and new permanent pacemaker implantation were higher in the TF-TAVR group, accounting for 56.0% and 40.0%, respectively. Conclusion TF-TAVR is a safe and feasible treatment for PAR patients, which is comparable to TA-TAVR in the early postoperative safety and efficacy.