Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in lower-risk and higher-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

Aims Additional randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is available, including longer term follow-up. A meta-analysis comparing TAVI to SAVR was performed. A pragmatic risk classification was applied, partitioning lower-risk and higher-risk patients. Methods and results The main endpoints were death, strokes, and the composite of death or disabling stroke, occurring at 1 year (early) or after 1 year (later). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs with 8698 patients were included. In lower-risk patients, at 1 year, the risk of death was lower after TAVI compared with SAVR [relative risk (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.96, P = 0.031], as was death or disabling stroke (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92, P = 0.014). There were no differences in strokes. After 1 year, in lower-risk patients, there were no significant differences in all main outcomes. In higher-risk patients, there were no significant differences in main outcomes. New-onset atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury occurred less after TAVI; new pacemakers, vascular complications, and paravalvular leak occurred more after TAVI. Conclusion In lower-risk patients, there was an early mortality reduction with TAVI, but no differences after later follow-up. There was also an early reduction in the composite of death or disabling stroke, with no difference at later follow-up. There were no significant differences for higher-risk patients. Informed therapy decisions may be more dependent on the temporality of events or secondary endpoints than the long-term occurrence of main clinical outcomes.</p

Catheter Ablation Versus Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: CASA-AF Randomised Controlled Trial

AimsLong-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF.Methods and resultsWe randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients’ symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46–2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67–4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02).ConclusionSingle procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA.Clinical Trial RegistrationISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688</div