Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) are typical diseases of the elderly. Up to 16% of older adults with severe AS referred to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a concomitant diagnosis of CA. CA-AS population suffers from reduced functional capacity and worse prognosis than AS patients. As the prognostic impact of TAVR in patients with CA-AS has been historically questioned and in light of recently published evidence, we aim to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the efficacy and safety of TAVR in CA-AS patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies: (i) evaluating mortality with TAVR as compared with medical therapy in CA-AS patients and (ii) reporting complications and clinical outcomes of TAVR in CA-AS patients as compared with patients with AS alone. A total of seven observational studies were identified: four reported mortality with TAVR, and four reported complications and clinical outcomes after TAVR of patients with CA-AS compared with AS alone patients. In patients with CA-AS, the risk of mortality was lower with TAVR (n=44) as compared with medical therapy (n=36) [odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-0.73, I2 =0%, P=0.001, number needed to treat=3]. The safety profile of TAVR seems to be similar in patients with CA-AS (n=75) as compared with those with AS alone (n=536), with comparable risks of stroke, vascular complications, life-threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, and 30day mortality, although CA-AS was associated with a trend towards an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.91-4.09, I2 =0%, P=0.085). CA is associated with a numerically higher rate of long-term mortality and rehospitalizations following TAVR in patients with CA-AS as compared with those with AS alone. TAVR is an effective and safe procedure in CA-AS patients, with a substantial survival benefit as compared with medical therapy, and a safety profile comparable with patients with AS alone except for a trend towards higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation.