Table 2 Outcome.

From: Sutureless versus transcatheter valves for the treatment of aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

 

Abdel-Wahab et al. (2020) 19

Vilalta et al. (2021) 20

Miceli et al. (2016) 24

D’Onofrio et al. (2016) 25

Biancari et al. (2016) 21

Repossini et al. (2018) 22

Chung et al. (2021) 26

Gerfer et al. (2021) 27

Al-Maisary (2021) 23

Muneretto et al. (2023) 28

Bruno et al. (2017) 29

Ferrara et al. (2021) 31

Santarpino et al. (2022) 30

Valve types and nr of patients

Perceval = 972

Intuity = 633

TAVR = 1605

Perceval = 171

TAVR = 171

Perceval = 37

TAVR = 37

Perceval = 214

TAVR = 214

Perceval = 144

TAVR = 144

Perceval = 185

TAVR = 185

Perceval = 60

Intuity = 2

TAVR = 62

Perceval = 59

TAVR = 59

Perceval = 35

Intuity = 16

TAVR = 52

Perceval = 517

TAVR = 517

Intuity = 30

TAVR = 30

Intuity = 48

TAVR = 48

Perceval = 172

TAVR = 172

Surgical risk

Low

Low

Intermediate

Intermediate

Intermediate

Intermediate

Intermediate

Intermediate

Intermediate

Intermediate

High

High

High

Early mortality (%)

1.7% vs. 0.6%

(P = .003)

4.1% vs. 1.8%

(P = .199)

0% vs. 8.1%

(P = .25)

2.3% vs. 3.7%

(P = .39)

1.4% vs. 6.9%

(P = .035)

1.6% vs. 5.9%

0% vs. 4.8%

(P = .244)

5.1% vs. 1.7%

(P = .619)

3.8% vs. 5.8%

(P = .647)

2.1% vs. 4.6%

(P = .026)

0% vs. 3.3%

(P = .330)

NR

4% vs. 2.9%

(P = .7)

1-year mortality (%)

NR

NR

8.4% vs. 21.4%*

5.8% vs. 9.4%

(P = .16)

NR

NR

1.7% vs. 7.0%

(P = .149)

NR

6% vs. 27%

(P = .058) *

NR

NR

4.2% vs. 8.3%

*

NR

2-year mortality (%)

NR

18.1% vs. 9.9%

(P = .936)

8.4% vs. 33.8%*

NR

NR

4.9% vs. 10.9%*

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

8.4% vs. 20.8% *

NR

Stroke (%)

1.8% vs. 0.7%

(P = .01)

2.3% vs. 2.9%

(P = .736)

0% vs. 5.4%

(P = .3)

1.9% vs. 1.9%

(P > .99)

0% vs. 2.1%

(P = .122)

Stroke or TIA

2.1% vs. 3.7%

4.8% vs. 3.2%

(P = 1)

1.7% vs. 0.0%

(P = 1)

1.9% vs. 0%

(P = .315)

Stroke or TIA

1.5% vs. 2.7%

(P = .596)

3.3% vs. 3.3% (P = .980)

NR

NR

AKI (%)

1.9% vs. 0.4% (< 0.001)

NR

8.1% vs. 5.4% (P = .45)

NR

2.1% vs. 0%

(P = .247)

3.2% vs. 10.8%

21.0% vs. 8.1%

(P = .041)

NR

1.9% vs. 7.7%

(P = .169)

2.1% vs. 4.4%

(P = .036)

3.3% vs. 0%

(P = .33)

NR

NR

Permanent pacemaker implantation (%)

8.5% vs. 12.8%

(P < .001)

8.8% vs. 18.1%

(P = .011)

5.4% vs. 0.0%

(P = .5)

9.4% vs. 2.8%

(P = .0046)

11.2% vs. 15.4%

(P = .296)

5.4% vs. 11.9%

6.5% vs. 14.5%

(P = .143)

10.2% vs. 8.5%

(P = .752)

7.7% vs. 1.9%

(P = .169)

6.4% vs. 11.8%

(P = .002)

3.3% vs. 30%

(P = .01)

-

5.8% vs. 11.6%

(P = .1)

ICU LOS (days)

2 (1–4) vs.

1 (1–2)

(P < .001)

NR

1 (1–2) vs.

1 (1–1)

(P = .5)

2 (1–3) vs.

1 (1–3)

(P < .001)

NR

1.6 ± 2.8 vs.

3.2 ± 2

5.9 ± 9.2 vs.

1.9 ± 1.6

(P = .009)

4 ± 5 vs.

3 ± 3

(P = .279)

NR

1 (0-1.5) vs. 1 (0–2)

(P = .258)

3.1 ± 1.4 vs. 2.1 ± 1.0

(P = .001)

NR

NR

Hospital LOS (days)

10 (8–14) vs.

7 (5–9)

(P < .001)

NR

7 (6–8) vs.

4.5 (3–6)

(P < .001)

11 (8–16) vs.

7 (5–9)

(P < .001)

NR

8.1 ± 11.3 vs.

9.5 ± 6.5

13.1 ± 8.8 vs.

7.1 ± 7.9

(P < .001)

12 ± 5 vs.

9 ± 5

(P = .001)

NR

NR

7.7 ± 2.9 vs.

9.4 ± 2.6

(P = .02)

-

12 vs. 8

(P < .01)

Peak postoperative gradient (mmHg)

23 (17–30) vs.

20 (14–26)

(P < .001)

NR

19.2 ± 6.9 vs. 19.7 ± 5.4

(P = .26)

26.7 ± 12.1 vs.

20.3 ± 8.1

(P < .001)

NR

18.7 ± 9.1 vs.

14.7 ± 9.1

27.5 ± 7.0 vs.

21.4 ± 10.5

(P < .001)

NR

NR

21.8 ± 6.5 vs.

22.4 ± 6.4

(P = .424)

20.3 ± 6.7 vs.

16.7 ± 6.8

(P = .04)

NR

NR

Mean postoperative gradient (mmHg)

12 (9–16) vs.

11 (8–14)

(P < .001)

16.8 ± 6.9 vs.

11.4 ± 5.7

(P < .001)

11.4 ± 3.7 vs. 10.1 ± 3.4

(P = .17)

13.7 ± 6.6 vs.

11.0 ± 4.6

(P < .001)

NR

10.9 ± 5.4 vs.

6.1 ± 5.4

14.7 ± 3.8 vs.

11.2 ± 5.7

(P < .001)

12 ± 4 vs.

9 ± 4

(P = .001)

NR

10.6 ± 6.2 vs.

10.8 ± 6.5

(P = .786)

11.5 ± 3.9 vs. 9.0 ± 4.4

(P = .03)

NR

NR

PVL ≥ grade 2

0.7% vs. 1.3%

(P = .06)

0.6% vs. 1.1%

(P = .706)

0% vs. 27%

0.5% vs. 5.3%

0.7% vs. 14.8%

0.5% vs. 7.0%

0% vs. 0%

0% vs. 6.8%

(P = .119)

0% vs. 1.9%

0.97% vs. 4.8%

(P < .001)

0% vs. 6.6%

(P = .33)

NR

NR

TAVR valve types

Sapien 3: 1065

Evolut: 549

Sapien 3: 99

Evolut PRO: 34

Portico: 25

Acurate NEO: 8

Direct flow: 5

Sapien

Sapien;

Sapien XT

CoreValve: 286

Sapien XT: 99

Portico: 2

Lotus: 2

CoreValve: 238

Sapien XT: 117

Acurate TA: 12

CoreValve: 16

Evolut R: 25

Evolut Pro: 3

Sapien 3: 15

Lotus: 3

Acurate NEO

JenaValves: 5

Evolut R: 1

Sapien XT: 18

Sapien 3: 22

Evolut R/pro

Acurate TA

Acurate neo/neo2

Sapien XT/3

Corevalve

Sapien 3

CoreValve

TAVR approach

TF: 100%

TF: 77.2%

Tcar: 18.1%

Tax 3.5%

Tao 1.2%

TF: 51.6%

TA: 48.3%

unmatched

NR

TF: 97.7%

TA: 1.0%

Tsub: 0.8%

Tao: 0.5%

unmatched

TF: 72.8%

TA: 22.4%

Other: 4.8%

TF: 98%

Tsub: 1.2%

Tao: 0.8%

TF: 100%

TA: 100%

TF: 79.4%

TA: 15.2%

Other: 5.3%

TF: 100%

TF: 81.7%

Tcar: 1.9%

Tsub: 5.8%

Tao: 7.7%

TA: 2.9%

TF: 100%

  1. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, median (interquartile range) or n (%), Sutureless/rapid-deployment vs. TAVR.
  2. SAVR: surgical aortic valve replacement; SU-AVR: Sutureless aortic valve replacement; TAVR: transcatheter aortic valve replacement; TF: transfemoral; TA: transapical; Tao: Transaortic; Tsub: transsubclavian; Tax: transaxillary: Tcar: transcarotid; NR: not reported; ICU: intensive care unit; LOS: length of stay, NR: not reported, AR: aortic regurgitation.
  3. * in 1- or 2-year mortality is derived from Kaplan-Meyer estimates.
Back to article page