Effectiveness and safety of emergency transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis complicated by cardiogenic shock: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The application of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been developed on different populations in many clinical studies. However, research dedicated to the application of emergency TAVR in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) experiencing cardiogenic shock is limited. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and effectiveness of emergency TAVR in AS patients with circulatory collapse. METHODS: Studies on the application of emergency TAVR in AS patients with cardiogenic shock were screened from PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. Two researchers independently screened the literature-extracted data and conducted a meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 16.0 software. RESULTS: 17 studies comprising 36,886 patients undergoing emergency TAVR and 8,530 patients undergoing emergency SAVR or BAV. Emergency TAVR showed no difference in valve implantation success rate compared to elective TAVR. At 30-day endpoints comparison, emergency TAVR exhibited significantly higher all-cause mortality and readmission rates than elective TAVR (RR=2.73 95 %CI 2.04-3.65, P < 0.01; RR=1.2 95 %CI 0.9-1.6, P < 0.01), but reduced mortality risk compared to emergency SAVR/BAV (RD=-0.15 95 %CI -0.25 to -0.04, P = 0.005). At one year post-operation, people with emergency TAVR continued to have higher all-cause mortality than elective TAVR (RR=1.55 95 %CI 1.37-1.74, P < 0.01) but similar with emergency SAVR/BAV (RD=-0.04 95 %CI -0.33 to 0.25, P = 0.796). Rates of severe bleeding and new-onset renal dialysis were higher after emergency TAVR, compared to elective TAVR, while the incidences of permanent pacemaker implantation, severe paravalvular leakage and stroke were similar. CONCLUSION: Despite emergency TAVR having higher readmission and mortality rates compared to elective TAVR, it is a relatively safe and effective treatment in cases of cardiogenic shock compared to emergency BAV/SAVR.