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

Abstract

Abstract Background Aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) are typical degenerative diseases of the elderly. According to recent studies, up to 16% of patients referred to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a concomitant diagnosis of CA. Until recently, TAVR in patients with CA and AS has been considered futile, following the results of small observational studies. However, few studies recently suggested a beneficial impact of TAVR in patients with AS and CA as compared with medical therapy alone. Purpose To clarify the efficacy and safety profile of TAVR in CA-AS patients. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the risk of mortality after TAVR in CA-AS patients as compared with medical therapy. Moreover, we performed a systematic review and descriptive meta-analysis of studies reporting outcomes and complication rates of TAVR in CA-AS patients as compared with patients with AS alone. Results We identified 4 observational studies reporting data on mortality in CA-AS patients treated with either TAVR or medical therapy. Mortality was significantly lower in patients undergoing TAVR (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.07–0.73, I2=0%, NNT=2.6) as compared with medical therapy. A sensitivity analysis with hazard ratio as effect estimate showed consistent results. Then, we identified 4 observational studies reporting data on mortality, re-hospitalizations and periprocedural complications of TAVR in CA-AS patients as compared with patients with AS alone. We found higher rates of mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization and need for permanent pacemaker implantation in CA-AS patients as compared to lone AS patients undergoing TAVR. Conversely, no differences were found in terms of stroke, acute kidney injury and vascular complications. Conclusions Our analysis rejects the idea of futility of TAVR in CA-AS patients showing a clear survival benefit of CA-AS patients undergoing TAVR as compared with medical therapy. Moreover, these patients may undergo TAVR with an acceptable procedural risk, that is substantially comparable to lone AS patients, except for a higher incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.