Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis and cardiac amyloidosis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis.

Aims: Aortic stenosis (AS) and cardiac amyloidosis (CA) are typical diseases of the elderly. Up to 16% of older adults with severe AS referred to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have a concomitant diagnosis of CA. CA‐AS population suffers from reduced functional capacity and worse prognosis than AS patients. As the prognostic impact of TAVR in patients with CA‐AS has been historically questioned and in light of recently published evidence, we aim to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the efficacy and safety of TAVR in CA‐AS patients. Methods and results: We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies: (i) evaluating mortality with TAVR as compared with medical therapy in CA‐AS patients and (ii) reporting complications and clinical outcomes of TAVR in CA‐AS patients as compared with patients with AS alone. A total of seven observational studies were identified: four reported mortality with TAVR, and four reported complications and clinical outcomes after TAVR of patients with CA‐AS compared with AS alone patients. In patients with CA‐AS, the risk of mortality was lower with TAVR (n = 44) as compared with medical therapy (n = 36) [odds ratio (OR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07–0.73, I2 = 0%, P = 0.001, number needed to treat = 3]. The safety profile of TAVR seems to be similar in patients with CA‐AS (n = 75) as compared with those with AS alone (n = 536), with comparable risks of stroke, vascular complications, life‐threatening bleeding, acute kidney injury, and 30 day mortality, although CA‐AS was associated with a trend towards an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.91–4.09, I2 = 0%, P = 0.085). CA is associated with a numerically higher rate of long‐term mortality and rehospitalizations following TAVR in patients with CA‐AS as compared with those with AS alone. Conclusions: TAVR is an effective and safe procedure in CA‐AS patients, with a substantial survival benefit as compared with medical therapy, and a safety profile comparable with patients with AS alone except for a trend towards higher risk of permanent pacemaker implantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]