Skip to main content
Log in

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes of TAVI versus SAVR in the octogenarian population

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has shown safe, robust results in elderly populations, and up until recently, was the gold standard for management of severe aortic stenosis. The approach to severe aortic stenosis in high-risk populations, such as octogenarians, has been challenged with the development of transcatheter-based strategies. We sought to systematically analyse outcomes between surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) in octogenarians.

Method

Electronic databases were searched from their inception until November 2018 for studies comparing SAVR to TAVI in octogenarians, according to a predefined search criterion. The primary end point was mortality, and secondary end points included post-procedural complications.

Results

The review yielded four observational studies. The total number of patients included was 1221 including 395 who underwent TAVI and 826 SAVR. On average, patients from both subgroups carried a high number of cardiac risk factors, and STS-PROM scoring yielded mean values equating to high-risk population groups, with significantly higher values for TAVI patients across the board. The presence of post-procedural moderate aortic regurgitation was noted only in the TAVI population (OR = 8.88; 95% CI (1.47–53.64), χ2 = 1.22; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%). Otherwise, there were no significant differences when accounting for mortality (OR = 0.68; 95% CI (0.44–1.05), χ2 = 1.88; p = 0.60; I2 = 0%), permanent pacemaker implantation groups (OR = 0.45; 95% CI (0.44–1.49), χ2 = 0.11; p = 0.19; I2 = 0%), and neurological events (OR = 0.72; 95% CI (0.42–1.23), χ2 = 2.57; p = 0.23; I2 = 22%).

Discussion

The analysed data on TAVI versus SAVR in the octogenarian population show that TAVI shows similar outcomes with relation to mortality and inpatient admission times, in a population with significantly higher risk profiles than their SAVR counterparts. TAVI has higher occurrences of post-procedural AR. TAVI still does not have robust long-term data to ensure its efficacy and rate of complications, but is showing promising results nonetheless.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro Heart Survey on valvular heart disease. Euro Heart J. 2003;24:1231–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ABS 2017. Australian demographic statistics, Jun 2016. ABS cat. no. 3101.0. Canberra: ABS.

  3. Eveborn GW, Schirmer H, Heggelund G, Lunde P, Rasmussen K. The evolving epidemiology of valvular aortic stenosis. The Tromsø Study Heart. 2013;99:396–400.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ben-Dor I, Pichard AD, Gonzalez MA, et.al. Correlates and causes of death in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are not eligible to participate in a clinical trial of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Circulation. 2010;122:S37–S42.

  5. Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Euro Heart J. 2017;38:2739–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Schwarz F, Baumann P, Manthey J, Hoffmann M, Schuler G, Mehmel HC, et al. The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation. 1982;66:1105–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ, Miller DC, Moses JW, Svensson LG, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:2187–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, Makkar RR, Svensson LG, Kodali SK, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(17):1609–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

  11. Wells G, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2011.

  12. Hirji SA, Ramirez-Del Val F, Kolkailah AA, et al. Outcomes of surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians—surgery still the gold standard? Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017;6:453–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Im E, Hong MK, Ko YG, Shin DH, Kim JS, Kim BK, et al. Comparison of early clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement versus optimal medical therapy in patients older than 80 years with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Yonsei Med J. 2013;54:596–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Strauch JT, Scherner M, Haldenwang PL, Madershahian N, Pfister R, Kuhn EW, et al. Transapical minimally invasive aortic valve implantation and conventional aortic valve replacement in octogenarians. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;60:335–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Martínez-Sellés M, Gómez Doblas J, Carro Hevia A, García de la Villa B, Ferreira-González I, Alonso Tello A, et al. Prospective registry of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis in octogenarians: a need for intervention. J Intern Med. 2014;275:608–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cao C, Ang S, Indraratna P, Manganas C, Bannon P, Black D, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;2:10–23.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Indraratna P, Tian DH, Yan TD, Doyle MP, Cao C. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol. 2016;224:382–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Genereux P, et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document. Euro Heart J. 2012;33:2403–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jabbour R, Tanaka A, Colombo A, Latib A. Delayed coronary occlusion after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: implications for new transcatheter heart valve design and patient management. Interv Cardiol. 2018;13:137–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jorgensen TH, Thygesen JB, Thyregod HG, Svendsen JH, Sondergaard L. New-onset atrial fibrillation after surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a concise review. J Invasive Cardiol 2015;27:41–7.

  21. Thiele H. SOLVE-TAVI: self-expanding vs. balloon-expandable valves and local vs. general anesthesia F. Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics Conference. September 2018, San Diego.

  22. Kumar N, Khera R, Fonarow GC, Bhatt DL. Comparison of outcomes of transfermoral versus transapical approach for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol. 2018;122:1520–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stuart Moss.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not sought, as this study utilised previously published material, and all data utilised was already de-identified.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moss, S., Doyle, M., Nagaraja, V. et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes of TAVI versus SAVR in the octogenarian population. Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 36, 356–364 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-019-00912-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12055-019-00912-0

Keywords

Navigation