Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Intermediate Surgical Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Long‐term survival after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: A meta‐analysis of observational comparative studies with a propensity‐score analysis

“…Our previous meta‐analysis of 19 observational studies with a propensity‐score analysis also demonstrated a statistically significant 21% increase in the hazard of mortality with TAVI relative to SAVR (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05–1.39; P = 0.010). Whereas, similar follow‐up (≥30‐day , 1‐year , mean 1.15‐year , >1‐year , and 2‐year ) mortality after TAVI and SAVR was indicated in recent (published since 2016) meta‐analyses of odds ratios (ORs) and risk ratios (RR) from RCTs only or RCTs and observational studies in overall , intermediate‐to‐high‐risk , intermediate‐risk , and low‐to‐intermediate‐risk patients . In both the previous and the present meta‐analysis, we extracted HRs from each individual study (and then combined them), which is quite different from the aforementioned recent meta‐analyses abstracting ORs or RR .…”

“…ORs [33][34][35][36][37]40] or RR [31,32,38,39]. The most appropriate way of summarizing time-to-event (survival) data is to use methods of survival analysis and express the intervention effect as a HR, neither an OR nor a RR [41].…”

“…[38], >1-year [39,40], and 2-year [32,34]) mortality after TAVI and SAVR was indicated in recent (published since 2016) meta-analyses [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] of odds ratios (ORs) [33][34][35][36][37]40] and risk ratios (RR) [31,32,38,39] from RCTs only [34,35,40] or RCTs and observational studies [31][32][33][36][37][38][39] in overall [32,34,35,40], intermediate-to-high-risk [39], intermediate-risk [31,33,36,38], and low-to-intermediate-risk patients [37,40]. In both the previous [9] and the present meta-analysis, we extracted HRs from each individual study (and then combined them), which is quite different from the aforementioned recent meta-analyses...…”

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is Associated with Less Oxidative Stress and Faster Recovery of Antioxidant Capacity than Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

“…As a minimally invasive procedure without the necessity to connect subjects to CPB it enabled the treatment of AS patients that previously had not been eligible for conventional SAVR [22]. Additionally, promising early outcomes of high-risk SA individuals together with increased operator experience and improved device systems have led to the extension of this technology to the others, including intermediate- and even low-risk individuals [23,24].…”

Mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis of randomised trials

“…Previous meta-analyses [4,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] indicated no difference in 1-year mortality between TAVI and SAVR. However, these meta-analyses [4,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] (including neither the Evolut Low Risk trial [5] nor the PARTNER 3 trial [6]) were quite different from the present metaanalysis (including both the Evolut Low Risk trial [5] and the PARTNER 3 trial [6]). Longer (≥2-year)-term outcomes after TAVI versus SAVR in RCTs have still been inadequate.…”