Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for native aortic valve regurgitation ― A systematic review ―

24Citations
Citations of this article
40Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care for management of high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. Limited data is available regarding the performance of TAVI in patients with native aortic valve regurgitation (NAVR). Methods and Results: We performed a systematic review from 2002 to 2016. The primary outcome was device success as per VARC-2 criteria. Secondary endpoints included procedural complications, and 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. A total of 175 patients were included from 31 studies. Device success was reported in 86.3% of patients – with device failure driven by moderate aortic regurgitation (AR ≥3+) and/or need for a second device. Procedural complications were rare, with no procedural deaths, myocardial infarctions or annular ruptures reported. Procedural safety was acceptable with a low 30-day incidence of stroke (1.5%). The 30-day and 1-year overall mortality rates were 9.6% and 20.0% (cardiovascular death, 3.8% and 10.1%, respectively). Patients receiving 2nd-generation valves demonstrated similar safety profiles with greater device success compared with 1st-generation valves (96.2% vs. 78.4%). This was driven by the higher incidence of second-valve implantation (23.4% vs. 1.7%) and significant paravalvular leak (8.3% vs. 0.0%). Conclusions: TAVI demonstrates acceptable safety and efficacy in high-risk patients with severe NAVR. Second-generation valves may afford a similar safety profile with improved device success. Dedicated studies are needed to definitively establish the efficacy of TAVI in this population.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yousef, A., MacDonald, Z., Simard, T., Russo, J. J., Feder, J., Froeschl, M. V., … Hibbert, B. (2018). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for native aortic valve regurgitation ― A systematic review ―. Circulation Journal. Japanese Circulation Society. https://doi.org/10.1253/circj.CJ-17-0672

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free