Key result
TAVR does not change CFR or FFR immediately post-procedure.
Why the study?
As TAVR expands to younger and lower-risk severe aortic stenosis patients, the influence of TAVR on coronary physiology measurements remains unclear.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement influence coronary physiology measurements in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Meta-Analysis (n=169)
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement influence coronary physiology measurements in patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Mean Difference: 0.11 (95% CI -0.1–0.32)
p-value: p=.29
TAVR does not significantly alter coronary physiology measurements such as FFR, iFR, or CFR, suggesting these indices remain stable immediately post-procedure.
TAVR leaves FFR and CFR unchanged immediately post-procedure; confirms reliability of these indices for coronary assessment in severe aortic stenosis.
BACKGROUND: As transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) expands to younger and lower-risk severe aortic stenosis patients, appropriate coronary artery disease treatment is key to reducing long-term adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Recently, studies have been exploring the role of coronary-physiology guided revascularization strategies. Our aim was to investigate whether TAVR influences coronary physiology measurements using quantitative meta-analytic methods. METHODS: We performed a Medline and Embase search for studies evaluating coronary physiology indices before and after TAVR. Double independent screening and extractions of baseline, procedural, angiographic, and echocardiographic data were performed. Risk of bias was assessed using the ACROBAT-NRSI tool. Pooled mean difference estimates of coronary hemodynamic indices before and after TAVR were derived using random-effects models with the inverse variance method (RevMan, Review Manager, version 5.3.5; Nordic Cochrane Centre). RESULTS: Five studies evaluating 250 coronary vessels in 169 severe aortic stenosis patients were quantitatively synthesized. Coronary flow reserve did not change immediately after TAVR in non-diseased vessels (n = 3; mean difference, 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.10-0.32; P=.29; I²=0%; P=.68). Importantly, fractional flow reserve also did not vary significantly following TAVR in both non-diseased (n = 3; mean difference, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.04-0.03; P=.75; I²=41; P=.19) and diseased coronaries (n = 3; mean difference, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.03-0.01; P=.49; I²=0%; P=.46). Similarly, instantaneous wave-free ratio remained stable following TAVR (n = 2; mean difference, 0.00; 95% CI, -0.02-0.02; P>.99; I²=0; P>.99. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled coronary physiology measurements before and after TAVR are similar, but data on variation within individual lesions are limited.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kotronias et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Severe aortic stenosis (n=169). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Before TAVR (baseline) was evaluated on Coronary flow reserve in non-diseased vessels (MD 0.11, 95% CI -0.10-0.32, p=.29). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement did not significantly change coronary flow reserve (MD 0.11; 95% CI -0.10-0.32; P=.29) or fractional flow reserve immediately post-procedure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: