ObjectiveTo investigate effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the treatment of aortic regurgitation. Methods PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data and VIP were searched from inception to August 2021. According to the criteria of inclusion and exclusion, two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the quality of the included studies. Then, Stata 16.0 software was used for meta-analysis. Subgroup meta-analysis of valve type used and study type was performed. ResultsTwenty-five studies (12 cohort studies and 13 single-arm studies) were included with 4 370 patients. Meta-analysis results showed that an incidence of device success was 87% (95%CI 0.81-0.92). The success rate of the new generation valve subgroup was 93% (95%CI 0.89-0.96), and the early generation valve subgroup was 66% (95%CI 0.56-0.75). In addition, the 30-day all-cause mortality was 7% (95%CI 0.05-0.10), the 30-day cardiac mortality was 4% (95%CI 0.01-0.07), the incidence of pacemaker implantation was 10% (95%CI 0.08-0.13), and the incidence of conversion to thoracotomy was 2% (95%CI 0.01-0.04). The incidence of moderate or higher paravalvular aortic regurgitation was 6% (95%CI 0.03-0.09). Conclusion Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for aortic regurgitation is safe and yields good results, but some limitations can not be overcome. Therefore, multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our results.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TFTAVR) under local anesthesia (LA) and general anesthesia (GA). MethodsElectronic databases including PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang and CBM were searched to collect randomized controlled trial and cohort studies on clinical outcomes of TFTAVR under LA and GA from inception to September 2020. Two authors independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the quality of studies, and a meta-analysis was performed by using Stata 16.0 software. ResultsA total of 30 studies involving 52 087 patients were included in this study. There were 18 719 patients in the LA group and 33 368 patients in the GA group. The results of meta-analysis showed that the in-hospital all-cause mortality rate [RR=0.65, 95%CI (0.45, 0.94), P=0.021], 30-day all-cause mortality rate [RR=0.73, 95%CI (0.62, 0.86), P＜0.001], 30-day stroke [RR=0.82, 95%CI (0.68, 0.98), P=0.025], cardiac arrest [RR=0.50, 95%CI (0.34, 0.73), P＜0.001], ICU stay time [RR=−6.86, 95%CI (−12.31, −1.42), P=0.013], and total hospital stay time [RR=−2.02, 95%CI (−2.59, −1.45), P＜0.001] in the LA group were all better than those in the GA group. There was no significant difference in the in-hospital stroke [RR=0.83, 95%CI (0.69, 1.00), P=0.053], in-hospital myocardial infarction (MI) [RR=1.74, 95%CI (0.43, 7.00), P=0.434], or 30-day MI [RR=0.77, 95%CI (0.42, 1.42), P=0.404] between the two groups. ConclusionLA provides a safe and effective way to induce sedation without intubation, and may be a good alternative to GA for TFTAVR.