Influence of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Strategy and Valve Design on Stroke After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Literature

Objectives udy undertook a systematic review to establish and compare the risk of stroke between the 2 widely used approaches (transfemoral [TF] vs. transapical [TA]) and valve designs (CoreValve, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota vs. Edwards Valve, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). ound has been a rapid adoption and expansion in the use of TAVR. The technique is however far from perfect and requires further refinement to alleviate safety concerns that include stroke. s udies reporting on the risk of stroke after TAVR were identified using an electronic search and pooled using established meta-analytical guidelines. s ticenter registries and 33 single-center studies were included in the analysis. There was no difference in pooled 30-day stroke post-TAVR between the TF and TA approach in multicenter (2.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.4 to 3.4] vs. 2.8% [95% CI: 2.0 to 3.9]) and single-center studies (3.8% [95% CI: 3.1 to 4.6] vs. 3.4% [95% CI: 2.5 to 4.5]). Similarly, there was no difference in pooled 30-day stroke post TAVR between the CoreValve and Edwards Valve in multicenter (2.4% [95% CI: 1.9 to 3.2] vs. 3.0% [95% CI: 2.4 to 3.7]) and single-center studies (3.8% [95% CI: 2.8 to 4.9] vs. 3.2% [95% CI: 2.4 to 4.3]). There was a decline in stroke risk with experience and technological advancement. There was no difference in the outcome of 30-day stroke between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. sions ndings suggest that the risk of 30-day stroke after TAVR is similar between the approaches and valve types. There has been a decline in stroke risk after TAVR with improvements in valve technology, patient selection, and operator experience.