Comparing functional and quality of life outcomes in transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare functional and health related quality of life outcomes post-transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with critical aortic stenosis (AS) across low to high-risk surgical candidates. These patient-centred factors will be compared between both groups in the short to medium term time frames and will aid in shared decision making between patients and healthcare workers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials which compared TAVI with SAVR and reported on quality of life (QoL) and functional scores. The scores used were the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), Euroqol-5DL (EQ5DL), the short form-36/12 (SF-36/12) and the NYHA. RESULTS: We identified eight trials with a total of 8898 participants. Both groups showed improvements from baseline at one month. At one month there was a statistically significant difference in standardised mean difference (SMD) in favour of TAVI for EQ5DL (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.26,0.49), KCCQ (SMD 0.53,95% CI 0.48, 0.58), SF physical summary (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 - 0.78) and SF mental summary (SMD 0.34, 95% CI 0.27 - 0.40). At one year there was no statistically significant difference between any of these QoL metrics. For NYHA, no significant difference in odds ratio of class III/IV was observed at one month between TAVI and SAVR (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83, 1.07), however, TAVI was associated with reduced odds ratio of NYHA class I/II at one year (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78, 0.98). CONCLUSION: Both groups were associated with improvements in QoL and functional outcomes with TAVI reporting more significant improvements in QoL at one-month post-procedures. No significant improvements between groups were seen at one year. This is the largest meta-analysis comparing post-operative health-related quality of life outcomes post SAVR and TAVI and has major implications in shared decision making for the treatment of aortic stenosis.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".