The American journal of cardiology
-
Review Meta Analysis
Meta-Analysis of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis.
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a viable option in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at high risk for surgery. We sought to further investigate outcomes in patients at low to intermediate risk with aortic stenosis who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus TAVR. We systematically searched the electronic databases, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for prospective cohort studies of the effects of TAVR versus SAVR on clinical outcomes (30-day mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke and myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, paravalvular regurgitation, permanent pacemaker implantation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury). ⋯ TAVR was associated with higher rates of vascular complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, and moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation (p <0.001 for all), whereas more major bleeding events were seen in the SAVR group (p <0.001). In conclusion, TAVR was found to have similar survival and stroke rates and lower major bleeding rates as compared with SAVR in patients at low or intermediate surgical risk. However, SAVR was associated with less pacemaker placements and paravalvular regurgitation rates.
-
Multicenter Study Observational Study
Immediate and Intermediate Outcome After Transapical Versus Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
A few studies recently reported controversial results with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR), often without adequate adjusted analysis for baseline differences. Data on patients who underwent TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR from the Observational Study of Effectiveness of avR-tavI procedures for severe Aortic stenosis Treatment study were analyzed with propensity score 1-to-1 matching. From a cohort of 1,654 patients (1,419 patients underwent TF-TAVR and 235 patients underwent TA-TAVR), propensity score matching resulted in 199 pairs of patients with similar operative risk (EuroSCORE II: TF-TAVR 8.1 ± 7.1% vs TA-TAVR, 8.4 ± 7.3%, p = 0.713). ⋯ Three-year survival rate was 69.1% after TF-TAVR and 57.0% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.006), whereas freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events was 61.9% after TF-TAVR and 50.4% after TA-TAVR (p = 0.011). In conclusion, TF-TAVR seems to be associated with significantly higher early and intermediate survival compared with TA-TAVR. The transfemoral approach, whenever feasible, should be considered the route of choice for TAVR.
-
Review Meta Analysis
Meta-Analysis of Radial Versus Femoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.
Radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to reduce mortality and vascular complications compared to femoral access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. However, efficacy and safety of radial access PCI in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS) is not well understood. A systematic search of electronic databases was performed through July 2015 to search and identify relevant studies. ⋯ Radial access was associated with significant reduction in major bleeding (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.73, p = 0.0002), access-site bleeding (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78, p = 0.007), and need for blood transfusions (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91, p = 0.02). Furthermore, the 1-year mortality was significantly lower in radial approach (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.95, p = 0.02). In conclusion, in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI, radial access is associated with decreased bleeding and access-site complications.
-
A risk score for atrial fibrillation (AF) has been developed by the Framingham Heart Study and Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE)-AF consortium. However, validation of these risk scores in an inner-city population is uncertain. Thus, a validation model was built using the Framingham Risk Score for AF and CHARGE-AF covariates. ⋯ Calibration analysis showed qualitative similarities between cohorts. In conclusion, this is the first study to validate both the Framingham Heart Study and CHARGE-AF risk scores in both a Hispanic and African-American cohort. All models predicted AF well across all race and ethnic cohorts.