Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Transcatheter, Minimally Invasive, and Conventional Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

The landscape of aortic valve replacement (AVR) has evolved dramatically over the years, but time-varying outcomes have yet to be comprehensively explored. This study aimed to compare the all-cause mortality among 3 AVR techniques: transcatheter (TAVI), minimally invasive (MIAVR), and conventional AVR (CAVR). An electronic literature search was performed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with CAVR and RCTs or propensity score-matched (PSM) studies comparing MIAVR with CAVR or MIAVR to TAVI. Individual patient data for all-cause mortality were derived from graphical reconstruction of Kaplan-Meier curves. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analysis were conducted. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the TAVI arm for high risk and low/intermediate risk, as well as patients who underwent transfemoral (TF) TAVI. A total of 27 studies with 16,554 patients were included. In the pairwise comparisons, TAVI showed superior mortality to CAVR until 37.5 months, beyond which there was no significant difference. When restricted to TF TAVI versus CAVR, a consistent mortality benefit favoring TF TAVI was seen (shared frailty hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.76 to 0.98, p = 0.024). In the network meta-analysis involving majority PSM data, MIAVR demonstrated significantly lower mortality than TAVI (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.82) and CAVR (HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.59 to 0.80); this association remained compared with TF TAVI but with a lower extent of benefit (HR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65 to 0.99). In conclusion, the initial short- to medium-term mortality benefit for TAVI over CAVR was attenuated over the longer term. In the subset of patients who underwent TF TAVI, a consistent benefit was found. Among majority PSM data, MIAVR showed improved mortality compared with TAVI and CAVR but less than the TF TAVI subset, which requires validation by robust RCTs.

Impact of aortic annular size and valve type on haemodynamics and clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

INTRODUCTION: Data on patients with small aortic annuli (SAA) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are limited. We aim to describe the impact of aortic annular size, particularly SAA and TAVI valve type on valve haemodynamics, durability and clinical outcomes. METHOD: All patients in National Heart Centre Singapore who underwent transfemoral TAVI for severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis from July 2012 to December 2019 were included. Outcome measures include valve haemodynamics, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM), structural valve degeneration (SVD) and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 244 patients were included. The mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was 6.22±6.08, with 52.5% patients with small aortic annulus (<23mm), 33.2% patients with medium aortic annulus (23-26mm) and 14.3% patients with large aortic annulus (>26mm). There were more patients with self-expanding valve (SEV) (65.2%) versus balloon-expandable valve (BEV) (34.8%). There were no significant differences in indexed aortic valve area (iAVA), mean pressure gradient (MPG), PPM, SVD or mortality across all aortic annular sizes. However, specific to the SAA group, patients with SEV had larger iAVA (SEV 1.19±0.35cm2/m2 vs BEV 0.88±0.15cm2/m2, P<0.01) and lower MPG (SEV 9.25±4.88 mmHg vs BEV 14.17±4.75 mmHg, P<0.01) at 1 year, without differences in PPM or mortality. Aortic annular size, TAVI valve type and PPM did not predict overall mortality up to 7 years. There was no significant difference in SVD between aortic annular sizes up to 5 years. CONCLUSION: Valve haemodynamics and durability were similar across the different aortic annular sizes. In the SAA group, SEV had better haemodynamics than BEV at 1 year, but no differences in PPM or mortality. There were no significant differences in mortality between aortic annular sizes, TAVI valve types or PPM.