Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objective Timing of intervention for patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains controversial. To compare the outcomes of early aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus watchful waiting (WW) in patients with asymptomatic severe AS.
Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases, in December 2021, for studies comparing early AVR with WW in the treatment of asymptomatic severe AS. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
Results Twelve studies were included in which two were randomised clinical trials. A total of 4130 patients were included, providing a 1092 pooled death events. Our meta-analysis showed a significantly lower all-cause mortality for the early AVR compared with WW group, although with a high amount of heterogeneity between studies in the magnitude of the effect (pooled OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.35 to 0.45, p<0.01; I²=61%). An early surgery strategy displayed a significantly lower cardiovascular mortality (pooled OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.56, p<0.01; I²=64%) and heart failure hospitalisation (pooled OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.39, p<0.01, I²=7%). However, both groups had similar rates of stroke (pooled OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.73 to 2.29, p=0.36, I²=0%) and myocardial infarction (pooled OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.27, p=0.14, I²= 0%).
Conclusions This study suggests that for patients with asymptomatic severe AS an early surgical intervention compared with a conservative WW strategy was associated with a lower heart failure hospitalisation and a similar rate of stroke or myocardial infarction, although with significant risk of bias.
PROSPERO registration number CRD42021291144.
- aortic valve stenosis
- cardiac surgical procedures
Data availability statement
Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data is publicly available and its references are cited in the text and the reference list.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available in a public, open access repository. All data is publicly available and its references are cited in the text and the reference list.
Footnotes
Twitter @gnfcosta, @teixeira
Contributors GNFC: conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, revision of the manuscript and final approval. JFLC: conception and design, drafting of the manuscript, revision of the manuscript and final approval. BO: statistical analysis, including meta-regression, interpretation of data, revision of the manuscript, final approval. LG: interpretation of data, revision of the manuscript, final approval and is responsible for the overall content as guarantor. RT: conception and design, interpretation of data, revision of the manuscript, final approval and is responsible for the overall content as guarantor.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.