Key result
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with aortic stenosis is the focus of this systematic review protocol, which contains no clinical results.
Why the study?
The efficacy and safety of TAVR for elderly patients aged over 80 years with aortic stenosis remains unclear.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement improve short-term and long-term outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients (aged over 80 years) with aortic stenosis?
Systematic Review
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement improve short-term and long-term outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients (aged over 80 years) with aortic stenosis?
This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the short- and long-term outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in elderly patients with aortic stenosis.
No immediate change to TAVR-SAVR decisions in elderly aortic stenosis; protocol will synthesize short- and long-term data to address equipoise.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has become an essential alternate option for people suffering from aortic stenosis. However, the efficacy and safety of TAVR for elderly population (aged over 80 years) is still unclear. METHODS: We plan to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical controlled trials and propensity-match cohort studies to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes in elderly aortic stenosis patients who undergo a transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement. We will search PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library using a comprehensive strategy. The related conference proceedings and reference lists of the included studies will also be checked to identify additional studies. Two reviewers will screen retrieved records, extract information, and assess the risk of bias independently. STATA software will be used to conduct data synthesis. There is no requirement of ethical approval and informed consent. RESULTS: This study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. CONCLUSION: This is the first systematic assessment of TAVR for elderly patients with aortic stenosis. We hope it will provide a relatively comprehensive reference for clinical practice and future relevant clinical trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval and patient consent are not required as this study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140857. STUDY PROTOCOL REGISTRY: The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO, which is an International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. The registration number is CRD42019140857.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wei et al. (2020) conducted a systematic review in Aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on All-cause mortality in 30 days, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in elderly patients with aortic stenosis is the focus of this systematic review protocol, which contains no clinical results.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: