Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Implications of TAVR in Patients With Active Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Authors

Parsa Saberian, Cardiovascular Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
Rafael Contreras MD, Yale New Haven Health/Bridgeport Hospital
Anoop Gurram MD, Department of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic
Amir Nasrollahizadeh MD, Tehran Heart Center, Cardiovascular Diseases Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences,
Marsimha Rao Keetha, Ohio Kidney and Hypertension Center
Anthony Loc Nguyen, Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center
Sandeep S. Nayak, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Health Bridgeport Hospital, Bridgeport, Connecticut.Follow
Mohammad-Hossein Keivanlou MD, School of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences
Mohammad Hasheim, Cardiovascular Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
Daniyal Ameen, Division of Hospital Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Bridgeport Hospital, Yale New Heaven, Bridgeport, CT, USA.Follow

Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Clinical Cardiology

Abstract

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of TAVR in patients with active cancer remain uncertain. This meta-analysis evaluates procedural success, complications, and survival outcomes of TAVR in patients with and without active cancer.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 18.0.

Results: The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between cancer and non-cancer patients (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.65; p = 0.27). Similarly, 30-day mortality did not differ between the two groups (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.19; p = 0.49). However, 1-year mortality was significantly higher in cancer patients (OR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.45, 2.56; p < 0.01). Two-year mortality was also higher in cancer patients (OR = 2.65; 95% CI: 1.79, 3.93; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in major bleeding, acute kidney injury, stroke, or permanent pacemaker implantation between the groups.

Conclusion: While TAVR offers comparable in-hospital and short-term survival outcomes for cancer and non-cancer patients, long-term mortality is significantly higher in those with active cancer. These findings suggest that TAVR is a viable option for cancer patients with severe AS but requires careful long-term prognostic considerations. Further studies are needed to optimize management strategies for this complex population.

First Page

e70121

DOI

10.1002/clc.70121

Publication Date

3-2025

Recommended Citation

Saberian P, Contreras R, Gurram A, Nasrollahizadeh A, Keetha NR, Nguyen AL, Nayak SS, Keivanlou MH, Hashemi M, Amini-Salehi E, Ameen D. Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Implications of TAVR in Patients With Active Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2025 Mar;48(3):e70121. doi: 10.1002/clc.70121.

e-ISSN

1932-8737