Comparing clinical outcomes between bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis / 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志

ABSTRACT

@#Objective    To compare the clinical outcomes of bicuspid aortic valve stenosis (BAV) and tricuspid aortic valve stenosis (TAV) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods    A computer-based search in PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and Wanfang databases from their date of inception to March 2019 was conducted. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted data and evaluated their quality. RevMan 5.3 and Stata 15.0 softwares were used for meta-analysis. Results    The selected 15 cohort studies contained 45 770 patients, including 1 500 of BAV patients and 44 270 of TAV patients. The results showed that no statistical difference was found in postoperative in-hospital mortality [OR=1.29, 95%CI (0.91, 1.83), P=0.15], 30-day mortality [OR=1.23, 95%CI (0.86, 1.77), P=0.25], and 1-year mortality [OR=1.14, 95%CI (0.87, 1.50), P=0.33] between the two groups. The surgical success rate [OR=0.57, 95%CI (0.44, 0.74), P<0.01], postoperative bleeding events [OR=0.72, 95%CI (0.58, 0.91), P<0.01] and postoperative vascular injury [OR=0.68, 95%CI (0.47, 0.97), P=0.03] of patients in the BAV group were lower than those in the TAV group. The incidence of paravalvular leak in the BAV group was higher than that in the TAV group [OR=1.47, 95%CI (1.13, 1.90), P<0.01]. No significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of conversion to surgery, postoperative myocardial infarction, postoperative renal failure, postoperative neurologic events, postoperative valve gradient difference and pacemaker implantation. Conclusion    Compared with TAV, the application of TAVR in BAV patients is feasible and effective.