» Articles » PMID: 37982737

Bayesian Interpretation of Non-inferiority in Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Trials: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives: The concept of non-inferiority is widely adopted in randomized trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, uncertainty exists regarding the long-term outcomes of TAVR, and non-inferiority may be difficult to assess. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing TAVR and SAVR, with a specific emphasis on the non-inferiority margin for 5-year all-cause mortality.

Methods: A systematic search was applied to 3 electronic databases. Randomized trials comparing TAVR and SAVR were included. Bayesian methods were implemented to evaluate the posterior probability of non-inferiority at different trial non-inferiority margins under either a vague, Cauchy, or a literature-based prior. Primary outcomes were 5-year actuarial all-cause mortality, and the probability of non-inferiority at various transformed trial non-inferiority margins. Secondary outcomes were long-term survival and 1- and 2-year actuarial survival.

Results: Eight trials (n = 8698 patients) were included. Kaplan-Meier-derived 5-year survival was 61.6% (95% CI 59.8-63.5%) for TAVR, and 63.7% (95% CI 61.9-65.6%) for SAVR. Six trials (n = 6370 patients) reported all-cause mortality at 5-year follow-up. Under a vague prior, the posterior median relative risk for all-cause mortality of TAVR was 1.14, compared to SAVR (95% credible interval 1.06-1.22, probability of relative risk <1.00 = 0.01%, I2 = 0%). Similar results in terms of point estimate and uncertainty measures were obtained using frequentist methods. Based on the various trial non-inferiority margins, the results of the analysis suggest that non-inferiority at 5 years is no longer likely.

Conclusions: It is unlikely that TAVR is still non-inferior to SAVR at 5 years in terms of all-cause mortality.

Citing Articles

Severe aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement with Perimount in Western Denmark 2016-2022: a nationwide retrospective study.

Krasniqi L, Brandes A, Mortensen P, Gerke O, Riber L Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2024; 39(1).

PMID: 38944031 PMC: 11229432. DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivae122.


The evolution of TAVI performance overtime: an overview of systematic reviews.

Angioletti C, Moretti G, Manetti S, Pastormerlo L, Vainieri M, Passino C BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024; 24(1):314.

PMID: 38907344 PMC: 11191264. DOI: 10.1186/s12872-024-03980-2.

References
1.
Siemieniuk R, Agoritsas T, Manja V, Devji T, Chang Y, Bala M . Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2016; 354:i5130. PMC: 5040923. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i5130. View

2.
Barili F, Freemantle N, Musumeci F, Martin B, Anselmi A, Rinaldi M . Five-year outcomes in trials comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a pooled meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021; 61(5):977-987. DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezab516. View

3.
Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-6. PMC: 2335261. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. View

4.
Kennedy-Martin T, Curtis S, Faries D, Robinson S, Johnston J . A literature review on the representativeness of randomized controlled trial samples and implications for the external validity of trial results. Trials. 2015; 16:495. PMC: 4632358. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-1023-4. View

5.
Barili F, Brophy J, Ronco D, Myers P, Uva M, Almeida R . Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2023; 6(1):e2249321. PMC: 9857525. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.49321. View