Early Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Management in Asymptomatic Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The merits of conservative management vs early intervention in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis remains unknown. Digital databases (MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Embase) were searched for all relevant studies from inception through September 2022. Studies comparing conservative manag...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Current problems in cardiology 2023-03, Vol.48 (3), p.101477-101477, Article 101477
Main Authors: Yasmin, Farah, Shaikh, Asim, Asghar, Muhammad Sohaib, Moeed, Abdul, Najeeb, Hala, Waqar, Eisha, Ram, Muskaan Doulat, Nankani, Avinash, Ochani, Rohan Kumar, Aamir, Muhammad, Ullah, Waqas, Waqar, Fahad, Johnson, Drew M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aortic Valve - surgery
Aortic Valve Stenosis - surgery
Conservative Treatment
Death, Sudden, Cardiac
Heart Failure - complications
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation - adverse effects
Humans
Risk Factors
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The merits of conservative management vs early intervention in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis remains unknown. Digital databases (MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Embase) were searched for all relevant studies from inception through September 2022. Studies comparing conservative management with early intervention were compared using a random-effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 12 studies comprising 3624 asymptomatic aortic stenosis patients (1747 receiving surgery, and 1877 receiving conservative treatment) were included in the analysis. The average follow-up time was 4.45 (IQR 3.5-5) years. Early intervention was associated with a significantly reduced risk of cardiac (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.72; P = 0.001; I2 = 54%), non-cardiac (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.32-0.68; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0%), all-cause mortality (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32-0.51; P < 0.00001; I2 = 58%), heart failure hospitalization (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13-0.36; P < 0.00001; I2 = 0%), sudden cardiac death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12-0.66; P = 0.004, I2 = 24%), and MACE (RR 0.46, 95% CI; 0.28-0.75; P = 0.002; I2 = 68%), compared with conservative management. There was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.19-2.04; P = 0.44; I2 = 28%), myocardial infarction (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19-1.06; P = 0.07, I2=0%), and 90-day mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20-2.37; P = 0.55; I2 = 61%) between the 2 groups. This meta-analysis shows statistically significant reductions in the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiac specific mortality, non-cardiac mortality, heart failure hospitalization, MACE, and sudden cardiac death among asymptomatic aortic stenosis patients who underwent early intervention as opposed to conservative management.
ISSN:0146-2806
1535-6280
DOI:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2022.101477