Transfemoral versus transapical approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of adjusted studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background In selected patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), via either transfemoral (TF) or transapical (TA) access, offers a less invasive alternative to standard surgical replacement. Comparison of TF- vs. TA-TAVI is usually confounded by the higher comorbidities of patients undergoing TA-TAVI, rendering the observed comparison of the TF- vs. TA-approach unclear. The present meta-analysis provides updated evidence of this comparison by focusing on studies reporting adjusted outcomes. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane database. We only included studies in which the comparison between TF- and TA-TAVI was adjusted for potential confounders. Primary outcomes were early and mid-term mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular events, bleeding, pacemaker, and acute kidney injury. Survival data was either obtained directly from reported outcomes or estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. Meta-regression was used to adjust for follow-up duration. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models on odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios (HR). The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020218163). Results A total of 24 studies with 36,158 patients were included in the present analyses. Of these studies, 7 used propensity score adjustment techniques and 17 used multivariable regression. TA-TAVI was associated with significantly higher postoperative mortality at 30 days (OR=1.67; 95% CI, 1.34 to 2.09; p<0.001) and 1 year (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.21 to 1.53; p<0.001). However, meta-analysis of studies censoring patients who died in the first 30 days showed no significant difference in 1 year mortality by access route (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.52; p=0.13). TA-approach was associated with increased perioperative surgical complications, such as bleeding (OR, 1.46, 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.96; p=0.012), acute kidney injury (OR, 2.31, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.33; p=0.001), and myocardial infarction (OR, 1.83, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.16; p=0.029). TA-TAVI was associated with reduced vascular complications (OR, 0.32, 95% CI 0.18–0.56; p<0.001), late postoperative aortic regurgitation (OR, 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.75; p=0.001), and a trend towards less pacemaker requirement (OR, 0.80, 95% CI 0.60–1.08, p=0.15). Conclusions Based on this meta-analysis of adjusted studies, a TA approach is associated with higher early and mid-term mortality compared to TF-TAVI. Excess mortality is likely driven by higher perioperative bleeding, renal complications and myocardial infarction. TA-TAVI did confer some benefits, such as reduced vascular complications, late postoperative aortic regurgitation, and a trend towards less pacemaker requirement. The optimal TAVI route should be based on individualized assessment by a multidisciplinary team. Longer follow-up and randomized studies are needed to ascertain long-term outcomes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1Figure 2
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,025 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,039 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».