Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for pure aortic regurgitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 33,484 patients

Abstract

IntroductionThe published studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in pure aortic regurgitation (AR) are conflicting. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare TAVI with SAVR in pure AR.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until 23 June 2023. Review Manager was used for statistical analysis. The risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to compare dichotomous outcomes. Continuous outcomes were compared using the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. The inconsistency test (I2) assessed the heterogeneity. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the quality of included studies. We evaluated the strength of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale.ResultsWe included six studies with 5633 patients in the TAVI group and 27,851 in SAVR. In-hospital mortality was comparable between TAVI and SAVR (RR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.56, 1.42], P = 0.63) (I2 = 86%, P < 0.001). TAVI was favored over SAVR regarding in-hospital stroke (RR = 0.50; 95% CI [0.39, 0.66], P < 0.001) (I2 = 11%, P = 0.34), in-hospital acute kidney injury (RR = 0.56; 95% CI: [0.41, 0.76], P < 0.001) (I2 = 91%, P < 0.001), major bleeding (RR = 0.23; 95% CI: [0.17, 0.32], P < 0.001) (I2 = 78%, P < 0.001), and shorter hospital say (MD = − 4.76 days; 95% CI: [− 5.27, − 4.25], P < 0.001) (I2 = 88%, P < 0.001). In contrast, TAVI was associated with a higher rate of pacemaker implantation (RR = 1.68; 95% CI: [1.50, 1.88], P < 0.001) (I2 = 0% P = 0.83).ConclusionTAVI reduces in-hospital stroke and is associated with better safety outcomes than SAVR in patients with pure AR.