Why the study?
To determine the incidence, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of post-TAVR infective endocarditis and compare its incidence against SAVR.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement reduce the incidence of infective endocarditis compared to surgical aortic valve replacement?
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement reduce the incidence of infective endocarditis compared to surgical aortic valve replacement?
TAVR is associated with a significantly lower incidence of infective endocarditis compared to SAVR, although post-TAVR infective endocarditis carries a high in-hospital mortality rate.
Supports TAVR preference in eligible patients to lower IE risk; extends comparative evidence versus SAVR.
We determined the incidence, clinical characteristics, and risk factors of post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)–associated infective endocarditis (IE). We compared the incidence of IE after TAVR versus after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The incidence rate of IE 1-year post-TAVR was 0.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.8-1.0). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with significantly reduced IE incidence (incidence rate ratio: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.52-0.92, P = .011) compared with SAVR. In patients with TAVR IE, the pooled in-hospital mortality was 37.8% (95% CI: 32.4-43.3, I 2 = 54.9%). Pooled adjusted hazard ratio (HR) revealed that peri-procedural peripheral artery disease (HR: 4.02, 95% CI: 2.28-7.10, P < .0001), moderate or severe residual aortic regurgitation (HR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.53-3.59, P < .0001), orotracheal intubation (HR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.19-3.82, P = .011), and male gender (HR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.47-1.97, P < .0001) were risk factors for post-TAVR IE. Post-TAVR IE is a life-threatening complication often resulting in in-hospital mortality. The current evidence-based meta-analysis to identify risk factors may lead to the development of effective preventive and therapeutic strategies for post-TAVR IE to ultimately improve patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: