How TAVI registries report clinical outcomes-A systematic review of endpoints based on VARC-2 definitions

Journal article


Publication Details

Author(s): Zhang S, Kolominsky-Rabas P
Journal: PLoS ONE
Publication year: 2017
Volume: 12
Journal issue: 9
ISSN: 1932-6203


Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been demonstrated to be an alternative treatment for severe aortic stenosis in patients considered as high surgical risk. Since its first human implantation by Cribier et al., TAVI has been shown to increase survival rate and quality of life for high surgical risks patients. The objective of this study is to provide an overview of TAVI registries and the reporting clinical outcomes based on the VARC-2 definitions. In addition, the comparability and adherence of VARC-2 reporting within the identified TAVI registries was reviewed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of TAVI registries reporting VARC-2 definitions has been performed in line with PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus databases and EMBASE. Based on VARC-2, patients' characteristics and procedure characteristics, 30-day clinical outcomes, 1-year mortality and composited endpoints were extracted from each registry's publications.
RESULTS: This review identified 466 studies that were potentially relevant, and 20 TAVI registries reported VARC-2 definitions involved in our present review. Of all 20 registries, an overall sample size of 12,583 patients was involved. The 30-day all-cause mortality ranged from 0 to 12.7%. From 20 registries, 14 registries reported the cardiovascular mortality at 30 days. 9 registries reported myocardial infarction (MI) rate based on VARC-2 definitions, and 7 registries reported peri-procedural MI rate (<72h). In our review, most of registries presented MI rates ranging from 0.5% to 2%. The majority of registries have reported complications such as bleeding, vascular complications and new pacemaker implantation.
CONCLUSION: Since the introduction of VARC definitions from 2011, VARC and VARC-2 definitions are still not systematically used by all TAVI studies. These endpoint definitions warrant a concise and systemic analysis of outcome measures. Reporting TAVI-outcome uniformly makes study result comparison feasible. This definitely will increase patient safety, additionally to provide sufficient evidence to support decision makers like regulatory bodies, HTA agencies, payers.


FAU Authors / FAU Editors

Kolominsky-Rabas, Peter Prof. Dr. med.
Medizinische Fakultät


How to cite

APA:
Zhang, S., & Kolominsky-Rabas, P. (2017). How TAVI registries report clinical outcomes-A systematic review of endpoints based on VARC-2 definitions. PLoS ONE, 12(9). https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180815

MLA:
Zhang, Shixuan, and Peter Kolominsky-Rabas. "How TAVI registries report clinical outcomes-A systematic review of endpoints based on VARC-2 definitions." PLoS ONE 12.9 (2017).

BibTeX: 

Last updated on 2018-22-10 at 13:53