Abstract 4145834: Comparison of 30-Day Outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in Patients with Prior CABG: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Managing severe aortic stenosis in patients with a history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is challenging. Traditionally, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the standard treatment, but transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a less invasive alternative. This meta-analysis compares the 30-day outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in patients with prior CABG. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in patients with prior CABG were included. The primary outcomes were 30-day (cardiovascular) CV mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi-squared test and I-squared statistic. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Nine studies with a total of 8,487 patients were included for the 30-day outcomes. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for 30-day CV mortality was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.48-2.06), with no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR (p=0.99). For 30-day all-cause mortality, the pooled OR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.51-1.10), also showing no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR (p=0.14). The pooled OR for 30-day myocardial infarction was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.09-1.27), indicating no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR (p=0.11). However, the pooled OR for 30-day stroke was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.50-0.90), showing a significantly lower incidence with TAVR compared to SAVR (p=0.007). Detailed results in Figure 1. Conclusion: In patients with a history of CABG, TAVR appears to have comparable 30-day outcomes to SAVR in terms of CV mortality, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, TAVR is associated with a significantly lower incidence of 30-day stroke. These findings suggest that TAVR may be a safer option in the short term for this high-risk patient population. Further research is needed to confirm these results in larger, randomized controlled trials.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2024-11-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4145834
Primary Topic
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4145834: Comparison of 30-Day Outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in Patients with Prior CABG: A Meta-Analysis

Hashim U. Ahmed, Shafia Munir, Aqeeb Ur Rehman, Muhammad Ahmad Qureshi et al.
Circulation
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
article

Abstract 4145834: Comparison of 30-Day Outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in Patients with Prior CABG: A Meta-Analysis

Hashim U. Ahmed, Shafia Munir, Aqeeb Ur Rehman, Muhammad Ahmad Qureshi, Umair Ansari, Shahan Haseeb, Omair Ahmed, Danyal Bakht, Maaz Amir, Ali Akram Qureshi, Muhammad Zulqarnain, Muqaddas Hussain
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Managing severe aortic stenosis in patients with a history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is challenging. Traditionally, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the standard treatment, but transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a less invasive alternative. This meta-analysis compares the 30-day outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in patients with prior CABG. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in patients with prior CABG were included. The primary outcomes were 30-day (cardiovascular) CV mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi-squared test and I-squared statistic. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Nine studies with a total of 8,487 patients were included for the 30-day outcomes. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for 30-day CV mortality was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.48-2.06), with no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR (p=0.99). For 30-day all-cause mortality, the pooled OR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.51-1.10), also showing no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR (p=0.14). The pooled OR for 30-day myocardial infarction was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.09-1.27), indicating no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR (p=0.11). However, the pooled OR for 30-day stroke was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.50-0.90), showing a significantly lower incidence with TAVR compared to SAVR (p=0.007). Detailed results in Figure 1. Conclusion: In patients with a history of CABG, TAVR appears to have comparable 30-day outcomes to SAVR in terms of CV mortality, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, TAVR is associated with a significantly lower incidence of 30-day stroke. These findings suggest that TAVR may be a safer option in the short term for this high-risk patient population. Further research is needed to confirm these results in larger, randomized controlled trials.

CirculationVol. 150(Suppl_1)
Northwell Health (US), King Edward Medical University (PK), New York Hospital Queens (US), Jackson Memorial Hospital (US), Shaikh Zayed Medical College and Hospital (PK)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 63%
Cardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.