Su C. Ang

Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an acceptable treatment modality for patients with severe aortic stenosis who are deemed inoperable by conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). However, the role of TAVI in patients who are potential surgical candidates remains controversial. METHODS A systematic review was conducted using five electronic databases, identifying all relevant studies with comparative data on TAVI versus AVR. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. A number of periprocedural outcomes were also assessed according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium endpoint definitions. RESULTS Fourteen studies were quantitatively assessed and included for meta-analysis, including two randomized controlled trials and eleven observational studies. Results indicated no significant differences between TAVI and AVR in terms of all-cause and cardiovascular related mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction or acute renal failure. A subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials identified a higher combined incidence of stroke or transient ischemic attacks in the TAVI group compared to the AVR group. TAVI was also found to be associated with a significantly higher incidence of vascular complications, permanent pacemaker requirement and moderate or severe aortic regurgitation. However, patients who underwent AVR were more likely to experience major bleeding. Both treatment modalities appeared to effectively reduce the transvalvular mean pressure gradient. CONCLUSIONS The available data on TAVI versus AVR for patients at a higher surgical risk showed that major adverse outcomes such as mortality and stroke appeared to be similar between the two treatment modalities. Evidence on the outcomes of TAVI compared with AVR in the current literature is limited by inconsistent patient selection criteria, heterogeneous definitions of clinical endpoints and relatively short follow-up periods. The indications for TAVI should therefore be limited to inoperable surgical candidates until long-term data become available.

Video-assisted thoracic surgery versus open thoracotomy for non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched patients.

OBJECTIVES This meta-analysis aimed to compare the perioperative outcomes of video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) with open thoracotomy for propensity score-matched patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS Four relevant studies with propensity score-matched patients were identified from six electronic databases. Endpoints included perioperative mortality and morbidity, individual postoperative complications and duration of hospitalization. RESULTS Results indicate that all-cause perioperative mortality was similar between VATS and open thoracotomy. However, patients who underwent VATS were found to have significantly fewer overall complications, and significantly lower rates of prolonged air leak, pneumonia, atrial arrhythmias and renal failure. In addition, patients who underwent VATS had a significantly shorter length of hospitalization compared with those who underwent open thoracotomy. CONCLUSIONS In view of a paucity of high-level clinical evidence in the form of large, well-designed randomized controlled trials, propensity score matching may provide the highest level of evidence to compare VATS with open thoracotomy for patients with NSCLC. The present meta-analysis demonstrated superior perioperative outcomes for patients who underwent VATS, including overall complication rates and duration of hospitalization.

A meta-analysis of unmatched and matched patients comparing video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy and conventional open lobectomy

BACKGROUND Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) for patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has been established as a safe and feasible alternative to open thoracotomy. This meta-analysis aims to assess the potential difference between unmatched and propensity score-matched cohorts who underwent VATS versus open thoracotomy in the current literature. METHODS Three relevant studies with unmatched and propensity score-matched patients were identified from six electronic databases to examine perioperative outcomes after VATS lobectomy versus open thoracotomy for patients with early-stage NSCLC. Endpoints included perioperative mortality and morbidity, individual postoperative complications and duration of hospitalization. RESULTS Results indicate that perioperative mortality was significantly lower for VATS compared to open thoracotomy in unmatched patients but no significant difference was detected amongst propensity score-matched patients. Similarly, the incidences of prolonged air leak and sepsis were significantly lower for VATS in the unmatched cohort, but not identified in the propensity score-matched cohort. In both the unmatched and matched groups, patients who underwent VATS were found to have a significantly lower overall perioperative morbidity rate, incidences of pneumonia and atrial arrhythmias, and a shorter duration of hospitalization in comparison to patients who underwent open thoracotomy. CONCLUSIONS The present meta-analysis indicates that VATS lobectomy has superior perioperative outcomes compared to open thoracotomy in both matched and unmatched cohorts. However, the extent of the superiority may have been overestimated in the unmatched patients when compared to propensity score-matched patients. Due to the limited number of studies with available data included in the present meta-analysis, these results are only of observational interest and should be interpreted with caution.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on pulmonary resections by robotic video-assisted thoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND Pulmonary resection by robotic video-assisted thoracic surgery (RVATS) has been performed for selected patients in specialized centers over the past decade. Despite encouraging results from case-series reports, there remains a lack of robust clinical evidence for this relatively novel surgical technique. The present systematic review aimed to assess the short- and long-term safety and efficacy of RVATS. METHODS Nine relevant and updated studies were identified from 12 institutions using five electronic databases. Endpoints included perioperative morbidity and mortality, conversion rate, operative time, length of hospitalization, intraoperative blood loss, duration of chest drainage, recurrence rate and long-term survival. In addition, cost analyses and quality of life assessments were also systematically evaluated. Comparative outcomes were meta-analyzed when data were available. RESULTS All institutions used the same master-slave robotic system (da Vinci, Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, California) and most patients underwent lobectomies for early-stage non-small cell lung cancers. Perioperative mortality rates for patients who underwent pulmonary resection by RVATS ranged from 0-3.8%, whilst overall morbidity rates ranged from 10-39%. Two propensity-score analyses compared patients with malignant disease who underwent pulmonary resection by RVATS or thoracotomy, and a meta-analysis was performed to identify a trend towards fewer complications after RVATS. In addition, one cost analysis and one quality of life study reported improved outcomes for RVATS when compared to open thoracotomy. CONCLUSIONS Results of the present systematic review suggest that RVATS is feasible and can be performed safely for selected patients in specialized centers. Perioperative outcomes including postoperative complications were similar to historical accounts of conventional VATS. A steep learning curve for RVATS was identified in a number of institutional reports, which was most evident in the first 20 cases. Future studies should aim to present data with longer follow-up, clearly defined surgical outcomes, and through an intention-to-treat analysis.

A meta-analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional mitral valve repair for patients with degenerative mitral disease

BACKGROUND Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery through a mini-thoracotomy approach was developed in the mid-1990s as an alternative to conventional sternotomy, but with reduced trauma and quicker recovery. However, technical demands and a paucity of comparative data have thus far limited the widespread adoption of minimally invasive mitral valve repair (MIMVR). Previous meta-analyses have grouped various surgical techniques and underlying valvular disease aetiologies together for comparison. The present study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of MIMVR versus conventional mitral valve repair in patients with degenerative mitral valve disease. METHODS A systematic review of the current literature was performed through nine electronic databases from January 1995 to July 2013 to identify all relevant studies with comparative data on MIMVR versus conventional mitral valve surgery. Measured endpoints included mortality, stroke, renal failure, wound infection, reoperation for bleeding, aortic dissection, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, readmission within 30 days, cross clamp time, cardiopulmonary bypass time and durations of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and overall hospitalization. Echocardiographic outcomes were also assessed when possible. RESULTS Seven relevant studies were identified according to the predefined study selection criteria, including one randomized controlled trial and six retrospective studies. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes did not identify any statistically significant differences between MIMVR and conventional mitral valve repair. The duration of ICU stay was significantly shorter for patients who underwent MIMVR, but this did not translate to a shorter hospitalization period. Patients who underwent MIMVR required longer cross clamp time as well as cardiopulmonary bypass time. Both surgical techniques appeared to achieve satisfactory echocardiographic outcomes. Pain-related outcomes was assessed in one study and reported significantly less pain for patients who underwent MIMVR. However, this limited data was not suitable for meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS The existing literature has limited data on comparative outcomes after MIMVR versus conventional mitral valve repair for patients with degenerative disease. From the available evidence, there are no significant differences between the two surgical techniques in regards to clinical outcomes. Patients who underwent MIMVR required longer cardiopulmonary bypass and cross clamp times, but the duration of stay in the ICU was significantly shorter than conventional mitral valve repair.

Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

OBJECTIVE Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative treatment to aortic valve replacement (AVR) for selected patients with severe aortic stenosis. The present systematic review was conducted to analyze the cost-effectiveness of this novel technique within reimbursed healthcare systems. METHODS Two reviewers used 7 electronic databases from January 2000 to November 2012 to identify relevant cost-effectiveness studies of TAVI versus AVR or medical therapy. The primary endpoints were the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the probability of cost-effectiveness. The eligible studies for the present systematic review included those in which the cost-effectiveness data were measured or projected for TAVI and either medical therapy or AVR. All forms of TAVI were included, and all retrieved publications were limited to the English language. RESULTS Eight studies were included for quantitative assessment. The ICER for TAVI compared with medical therapy for surgically inoperable patients ranged from US

Migration of the transcatheter valve into the left ventricle.

26,302 to US

Should clopidogrel be discontinued before coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with acute coronary syndrome? A systematic review and meta-analysis

61,889 per quality-adjusted life year gained. The probability of TAVI being cost-effective compared with medical therapy ranged from 0.03 to 1.00. The ICER values for TAVI compared with AVR for high-risk surgical candidates ranged from US

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: clinical outcomes and costs.

32,000 to US

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgery for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis.

975,697 per quality-adjusted life year gained. The probability of TAVI being cost-effective in this cohort ranged from 0.116 to 0.709. CONCLUSIONS Depending on the ICER threshold selected, TAVI is potentially justified on both medical and economic grounds compared with medical therapy for patients deemed to be surgically inoperable. However, in the high-risk surgical patient cohort, the evidence is currently insufficient to economically justify the use of TAVI in preference to AVR.