IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0233894.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Hsiu-An Lee
  • An-Hsun Chou
  • Victor Chien-Chia Wu
  • Dong-Yi Chen
  • Hsin-Fu Lee
  • Kuang-Tso Lee
  • Pao-Hsien Chu
  • Yu-Ting Cheng
  • Shang-Hung Chang
  • Shao-Wei Chen

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve (VIV) procedure is a safe alternative to conventional reoperation for bioprosthetic dysfunction. Balloon-expandable valve (BEV) and self-expanding valve (SEV) are the 2 major types of devices used. Evidence regarding the comparison of the 2 valves remains scarce. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the outcomes of BEV and SEV in transcatheter VIV for aortic bioprostheses dysfunction. A computerized search of Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed. English-language journal articles reporting SEV or BEV outcomes of at least 10 patients were included. Results: In total, 27 studies were included, with 2,269 and 1,671 patients in the BEV and SEV groups, respectively. Rates of 30-day mortality and stroke did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. However, BEV was associated with significantly lower rates of postprocedural permanent pacemaker implantation (3.8% vs. 12%; P

Suggested Citation

  • Hsiu-An Lee & An-Hsun Chou & Victor Chien-Chia Wu & Dong-Yi Chen & Hsin-Fu Lee & Kuang-Tso Lee & Pao-Hsien Chu & Yu-Ting Cheng & Shang-Hung Chang & Shao-Wei Chen, 2020. "Balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0233894
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233894
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233894
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0233894&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0233894?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0233894. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.