Lingamsetty, Shanmukh Sai Pavan

Background:Aortic valve replacement is the primary treatment for aortic valve disease and can be performed using either transcatheter (TAVR) or surgical (SAVR) approaches. The risk of aortic dissection (AD) with TAVR compared with SAVR remains unclear. We aimed to compare AD risk between TAVR and SAVR using a large, real-world cohort. Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the TriNetX research network. Patients with a diagnosis of aortic stenosis, aortic insufficiency, mixed aortic valve disease (AVD), or unspecified AVDwho underwent either TAVR or SAVR were included. A 1:1 propensity score-matching (PSM) based on baseline characteristics was performed to adjust for potential confounding. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results:Among 95,043 patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement, 20,237 matched pairs were analyzed after 1:1 PSM. Baseline characteristics were well balanced, with a mean age of 73.3 ± 9.3 years in the TAVR group and 73.2 ± 8.5 years in the SAVR group; 60.8% and 60.7% were male, respectively. TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of composite AD than SAVR at all time points (1-year OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.44–0.82; 3-year OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48–0.83; 5-year OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51–0.85; p < 0.01 for all). Stratified analyses demonstrated lower odds of both Stanford type A and type B AD at all time points. Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated a separation in composite AD-free survival between the two groups (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.51–0.86; p = 0.002).Conclusion:In this large, real-world cohort, despite a low event rate, TAVR was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of composite AD than SAVR.

Abstract Aims Randomized trials comparing percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) with oral anticoagulation (OAC) for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation have yielded conflicting results across device generations and anticoagulant eras. This Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized trials aimed to compare LAAO vs. OAC for stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and non-procedural clinically relevant bleeding (CRB). Methods and results We conducted a systematic search across five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL) to identify randomized trials of LAAO vs. OAC. Primary outcomes of stroke or systemic embolism, non-procedural CRB and clinical benefit composite were estimated using a Bayesian hierarchical random effects model and findings confirmed across robust sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Posterior probabilities for superiority, non-inferiority and equivalence were estimated using clinically meaningful margins. Six randomized trials including 7004 participants in the intention-to-treat groups, were analysed. LAAO was not associated with lower SSE vs. OAC (pooled RR, 1.11; 95% CrI, 0.80–1.49), with a 74.6% posterior probability of favouring OAC. The posterior probability of crossing non-inferiority was P(HR &lt; 1.4) of 89%. In contrast, LAAO reduced non-procedural CRB (pooled RR, 0.59; 95% CrI, 0.45–0.78). The net clinical benefit composite, pooling contemporary trials, demonstrated a pooled RR of 0.90 (95% CrI 0.51–1.50), with P(RR &lt; 1) of 76%, with substantial heterogeneity for this outcome. Conclusion This Bayesian meta-analysis found no clear evidence supporting clinically meaningful non-inferiority of LAAO over OAC for stroke prevention. Despite reduced non-procedural bleeding, LAAO did not demonstrate a similar reduction in major bleeding.