Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for treatment of aortic valve stenosis: an evidence update.
Sehatzadeh S., Doble B., Xie F., Blackhouse G., Campbell K., Kaulback K., Chandra K., Goeree R.
BACKGROUND: One-year mortality outcomes in the PARTNER trial showed that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) in patients who were eligible for sAVR (cohort A), and superior to standard treatment in patients who were ineligible for sAVR (cohort B). OBJECTIVE: To update a previous report on the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of TAVI, published in 2012. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was performed on September 11, 2012, using OVID MEDLINE, OVID MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, OVID EMBASE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Wiley Cochrane Library, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database, for studies published from January 1, 2011, until September 11, 2012. REVIEW METHODS: Randomized controlled trials investigating TAVI in comparison to sAVR or standard treatment were included for analysis. Results were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: At 2-year follow-up, mortality in cohort A was similar between the TAVI and sAVR groups. Rates of stroke/transient ischemic attack, major vascular complications, and moderate/severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation were significantly higher in the TAVI group, but rate of major bleeding was significantly higher in the sAVR group. Mortality in cohort B was significantly lower with transfemoral (TF) TAVI than with standard treatment, but rate of stroke was significantly higher with TF TAVI. TF TAVI resulted in a more rapid improvement in quality of life scores than sAVR, but this difference was not sustained at 6 and 12 months. Patients who underwent transapical TAVI did not have a greater early improvement in quality of life compared to sAVR patients. Compared to standard treatment, TF TAVI resulted in a greater improvement in quality of life scores at all time points. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were in favour of TAVI for inoperable patients in the base-case analysis, but varied widely for operable patients. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the 2-year follow-up with respect to mortality and adverse events were consistent with those of the 1-year follow-up. TAVI was also associated with improvement in quality of life, although results varied by cohort. Consistent with the 2012 report, TAVI may be cost-effective for patients who are not candidates for surgery.