Impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch after transcatheter aortic valve replacement : meta-analysis of kaplan-meier-derived individual patient data

Background: It remains controversial whether prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) (in general considered moderate if indexed effective orifice area is 0.65-0.85 cm2/m2 and severe when <0.65 cm2/m2) affects the outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the time-varying effects and association of PPM with the risk of overall mortality. Methods: Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of studies published by December 30, 2021. Results: In total, 23 studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 81,969 patients included in the Kaplan-Meier curves (19,612 with PPM and 62,357 without PPM). Patients with moderate/severe PPM had a significantly higher risk of mortality compared with those without PPM (HR: 1.09 [95% CI: 1.04-1.14]; P < 0.001). In the first 30 months after the procedure, mortality rates were significantly higher in the moderate/severe PPM group (HR: 1.1 [95% CI: 1.05-1.16]; P < 0.001). In contrast, the landmark analysis beyond 30 months yielded a reversal of the HR (0.83 [95% CI: 0.68-1.01]; P = 0.064), but without statistical significance. In the sensitivity analysis, although the authors observed that severe PPM showed higher risk of mortality in comparison with no PPM (HR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.16-1.36]; P < 0.001), they did not observe a statistically significant difference for mortality between moderate PPM and no PPM (HR: 1.03 [95% CI: 0.96-1.10]; P = 0.398). Conclusions: Severe PPM, but not moderate PPM, was associated with higher risk of mortality following TAVR. These results provide support to implementation of preventive strategies to avoid severe PPM following TAV

Long-term outcomes of Ross procedure versus mechanical aortic valve replacement : meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

In the era of lifetime management of aortic valve disease, the Ross procedure emerged as an alternative to prosthetic heart valves for young adults; however, more long-term data are warranted. We performed a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data to compare long-term outcomes between the Ross procedure and mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) in young adults. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and GoogleScholar were searched for studies comparing Ross procedure with mAVR that reported mortality/survival rates and/or reoperation rates accompanied by at least one Kaplan-Meier curve for any of the outcomes. Six observational studies (5 with propensity score matching) including 5024 patients (Ross: 1737; mAVR: 3287) met our inclusion criteria. Patients who underwent Ross had a significantly lower risk of mortality in the overall population (HR 0.38, 95%CI 0.30-0.49, P<0.001; median follow-up of 7.2 years) and in the propensity score matched cohorts (HR 0.55, 95%CI 0.42-0.73, P<0.001; median follow-up of 10.2 years); however, the incidence function for the cumulative risk of reoperation was higher for the Ross procedure (HR 1.91, 95%CI 1.36-2.70, P<0.001; median follow-up of 9.3 years). Data from observational studies suggest that the Ross procedure is associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with mAVR; however, there is a higher risk of reoperation. Besides serving as basis to inform patients about benefits and risks involved in this choice, these results call for further randomized clinical trials to determine whether the Ross procedure can achieve its potential benefits in young patients in need of AVR

Late outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus re-replacement : meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Aims: To evaluate all-cause mortality in ViV-TAVI versus redo SAVR in patients with failed bioprostheses. Methods: Study-level meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from Kaplan-Meier curves of non-randomized studies published by September 30, 2021. Results: Ten studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 3345 patients (1676 patients underwent ViV-TAVI and 1669 patients underwent redo SAVR). Pooling all the studies, ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 44 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49–0.93, P = 0.017], with an HR reversal after 197 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.53; 95% CI 1.22–1.93; P < 0.001). Pooling only the matched populations (1143 pairs), ViV-TAVI showed a lower risk of all-cause mortality in the first 55 days [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–0.89, P < 0.001], with a reversal HR after 212 days favoring redo SAVR (HR 1.57; 95% CI 1.22–2.03; P < 0.001). The Cox regression model showed a statistically significant association of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) with all-cause mortality during follow-up for ViV-TAVI (HR 1.03 per percentage increase in the study- and treatment arm-level proportion of PPM, 95% 1.02–1.05, P < 0.001). Conclusion: ViV-TAVI is associated with a strong protective effect immediately after the procedure in comparison with redo SAVR, however, this initial advantage reverses over time and redo SAVR seems to be a protective factor for all-cause mortality after 6 months. Considering that these results are the fruit of pooling data from observational studies, they should be interpreted with caution and trials are warranted