Key result
Emergency TAVI for cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic stenosis had a pooled 30-day mortality of 19% (95% CI 0.17-0.20), compared to 39% (95% CI 0.32-0.46) for emergency balloon valvuloplasty.
Why the study?
Cardiogenic shock induced by severe aortic stenosis carries high mortality, and despite advancements in emergency interventions, the optimal treatment approach remains uncertain.
What are the clinical outcomes of emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation (eTAVI) and emergency balloon aortic valvuloplasty (eBAV) in patients with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic stenosis?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,811)
What are the clinical outcomes of emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation (eTAVI) and emergency balloon aortic valvuloplasty (eBAV) in patients with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic stenosis?
Absolute Event Rate: 19% vs 39%
In patients with cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic stenosis, mortality remains high despite emergency interventions, with pooled 30-day mortality rates of 19% for eTAVI and 39% for eBAV.
eTAVI may be preferable to eBAV in CS from severe AS; leaves open need for randomized trials to guide practice.
BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock (CS) induced by severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a life-threatening condition with high mortality. Despite advancements in emergency interventions, the optimal treatment approach remains uncertain. AIM: This study aimed to systematically review and analyse the existing evidence on outcomes of emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation (eTAVI) and emergency balloon aortic valvuloplasty (eBAV) in CS patients. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was mortality at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were in-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality, bleeding, major vascular complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, incidence of pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury and aortic regurgitation. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included, totalling 2811 patients. The analysis revealed a 30-day mortality pooled estimated rate for eTAVI of 19% (CI 0.17 - 0.20) and for eBAV 39% (CI 0.32 - 0.46). In-hospital mortality pooled estimated rates were 11% for eTAVI (CI 0.06 - 0.18) and for eBAV 40% (CI 0.28 - 0.54). One-year mortality pooled estimated rates for eTAVI were 29% (CI 0.20 - 0.40) and for eBAV 67% (CI 0.58 - 0.74). Pooled estimated rates of any bleeding were 12% for eTAVI (CI 0.06 - 0.20) and 15% for eBAV (CI 0.10 - 0.21). The rate of major vascular complications for eTAVI was 8% (CI 0.07 - 0.10) and 3% for eBAV (CI 0.0 - 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that mortality in CS due to AS remains high despite emergency interventional treatment. These findings offer critical insights for clinical decision-making optimising patient care in this critically ill population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kühne et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic stenosis (n=2,811). Emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation (eTAVI) vs. Emergency balloon aortic valvuloplasty (eBAV) was evaluated on Mortality at 30 days. Emergency TAVI for cardiogenic shock due to severe aortic stenosis had a pooled 30-day mortality of 19% (95% CI 0.17-0.20), compared to 39% (95% CI 0.32-0.46) for emergency balloon valvuloplasty.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: