Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in dialysis-dependent patients: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

This meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis in dialysis-dependent patients. Literature searches employed PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Embase to identify relevant studies. Bias-treated data were prioritized, isolated and pooled for analysis; raw data were utilized where bias-treated data were unavailable. Outcomes were analysed to assess for study data crossover. Literature search identified 10 retrospective studies; following data source analysis, five studies were included. Upon pooling of bias-treated data, TAVI was significantly favoured in early mortality [odds ratio (OR), 0.42; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.19-0.92; I2 = 92%; P = 0.03], 1-year mortality (OR, 0.88; 95% CI 0.80-0.97; I2 = 0%; P = 0.01), rates of stroke/cerebrovascular events (OR, 0.71; 95% CI 0.55-0.93; I2 = 0%; P = 0.01) and blood transfusions (OR, 0.36; 95% CI 0.21-0.62; I2 = 86%; P = 0.0002). Pooling demonstrated fewer new pacemaker implantations in the AVR group (OR, 3.33; 95% CI 1.94-5.73; I2 = 74%; P ≤ 0.0001) and no difference in the rate of vascular complications (OR, 2.27; 95% CI 0.60-8.59; I2 = 83%; P = 0.23). Analysis including raw data revealed the length of hospital stay to favour TAVI with a mean difference of -9.20 days (95% CI -15.58 to -2.82; I2 = 97%; P = 0.005). Bias-treated meta-analysis comparing surgical AVR and TAVI favoured TAVI in early mortality, 1-year mortality, rates of stroke/cerebrovascular events and blood transfusions. There was no difference in the rates of vascular complications; however, TAVI required more pacemaker implantations. Data pooling including raw data revealed that the length of hospital admission favours TAVI.