Moghadam, Arman Soltani

ABSTRACTBackgroundComparisons of outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon‐expandable (BEV) versus self‐expanding (SEV) valves are limited.HypothesisThis study aimed to compare clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of BEV and SEV at short‐term (30 days), midterm (1 year), and long‐term (> 1 year) endpoints.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched until July 2024 for randomized controlled trials. Random‐effect model (DerSimonian–Laird method) was used to pool the risk ratios (RR), mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsA total of 10 studies comprising 4325 patients (2295 BEV, 2030 SEV) were included. In short‐term, cardiovascular (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36–0.87) and all‐cause mortality (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35–0.81) were lower in the BEV group. Risk of moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) was lower among BEV patients in short‐term (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.17–0.49) and long‐term (RR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.1–0.79). A limited number of studies showed a greater risk of clinical valve thrombosis on BEV in midterm and long‐term. The need for permanent pacemaker implantation was lower in BEV at both short‐term (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37–0.87), and midterm (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64–0.94). The SEV group had a larger effective orifice area with lower mean transvalvular pressure gradient at all endpoints.ConclusionsBEV is associated with reduced risk of clinical outcomes in short‐term; however, most differences diminish in longer evaluations, except for moderate to severe PVL, which remains elevated for SEV. SEVs had better hemodynamic results and lower risk of clinical valve thrombosis.

Background: Coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) secondary to neointimal hyperplasia or neoatherosclerosis remains a significant challenge following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), with no consensus on the optimal revascularization strategy. We compared the outcome of PCI for ISR using drug-coated balloons (DCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) and investigated the time trends in their clinical outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched through May 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB versus DES among patients with coronary ISR. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, and late lumen loss (LLL). Random-effects models were employed to analyze outcomes within 1-year and beyond 1-year intervals. Meta-regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of age, sex, history of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, and ejection fraction on all outcomes by applying mixed-effect models. Results: We included 10 RCTs (1034 patients in the DCB group and 943 patients in the DES group). We found similar incidence of 1-year TLR (odds ratio [OR] 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86, 2.14; P 0.194; I 2 43.3%) and >1-year TLR (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.57, 1.56; P 0.817; I 2 0%) with the use of DCB versus DES. The risks of all-cause mortality, MI, and stent thrombosis were comparable between DCB and DES in 1-year and beyond 1-year follow-ups. At 6-9 months angiographic follow-up, DCB was associated with non-significantly lower LLL compared to DES (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.12 millimeters; 95% CI -0.29, 0.05; P 0.170; I 2 71.7%). Meta-regression indicated that higher prevalence of diabetes was associated with an increased risk of 1-year revascularization after DCB compared to DES (Estimate 0.07; P 0.003; I 2 0%). Additionally, male sex was associated with an increased LLL in DCB versus DES (Estimate 0.034; P 0.001; I 2 41.8%). No association was found between other baseline characteristics and measured clinical outcomes. Conclusion: DCB demonstrated comparable PCI outcomes compared to DES in patients with coronary ISR.

Background: The research on the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement with balloon-expandable valves (BEV) and self-expanding valves (SEV) are limited. Hypothesis: This study aims to compare the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of BEV and SEV at short-term (30 days), mid-term (1 year), and long-term (>1 year) endpoints. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 25, 2024, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Random-effect model (DerSimonian–Laird method) was used to pool the risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. Results: A total of 11 RCTs comprising 4,325 patients (2,295 BEV, 2,030 SEV) were included. At short-term, the risk of cardiovascular (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36-0.87) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.81) were lower in the BEV group. However, no differences were noted between the two treatment modalities in longer follow-ups despite the lower risk of moderate to severe paravalvular leak (PVL) among BEV patients. The risk of stroke was comparable between two groups across all three follow-up endpoints, albeit a limited number of studies suggesting the BEV group showed a greater risk of clinical valve thrombosis in mid-term and long-term assessments. The need for permanent pacemaker implantation was lower in BEV arm in short-term (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.37-0.87) and mid-term (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.94). Yet, this difference was not observed in long-term follow-ups. Conversely, the SEV group had a larger effective orifice area with lower mean transvalvular pressure gradient from short-term (MD: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.07-0.26 and MD: 3.71, 95% CI: 2.64-4.78, respectively) to long-term (MD: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.17-0.32 and MD: 3.73, 95% CI: 3.19-4.27, respectively) periods. Conclusions: BEV is associated with reduced risk of clinical outcomes at short-term; however, most differences diminish in longer evaluations, except for moderate to severe PVL. Conversely, SEV is linked to better hemodynamic outcomes and a lower risk of clinical valve thrombosis across all follow-up durations.