Transfemoral versus transapical approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of adjusted studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".