Next Article in Journal
Rate and Risk Factors of Acute Myocardial Infarction after Debut of Chronic Kidney Disease—Results from the KidDiCo
Next Article in Special Issue
A New Definition of Thrombocytopenia Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Incidence, Outcome, and Predictors
Previous Article in Journal
P66Shc (Shc1) Zebrafish Mutant Line as a Platform for Testing Decreased Reactive Oxygen Species in Pathology
Previous Article in Special Issue
Prosthetic Valve Function after Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis by Transcatheter Procedure versus Surgery
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCDD
Volume 9
Issue 11
10.3390/jcdd9110386
jcdd-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of High BMI in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

by
Jiyoung Seo
1,*,
Weijia Li
2,
Israel Safiriyu
1,
Amrin Kharawala
1,
Sanjana Nagraj
1,
Arooj Tahir
1,
Ioannis Doundoulakis
3,
Leonidas Koliastasis
3,
Saul Rios
4,
Leonidas Palaiodimos
1 and
Damianos G. Kokkinidis
5
1
Department of Internal Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine, The Bronx, NY 10461, USA
2
AdventHealth Orlando, Orlando, FL 32803, USA
3
Department of Cardiology, Hippokration Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 10679 Athens, Greece
4
Montefiore Einstein Center for Heart & Vascular Care, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, The Bronx, NY 10467, USA
5
Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2022, 9(11), 386; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9110386
Submission received: 20 September 2022 / Revised: 22 October 2022 / Accepted: 1 November 2022 / Published: 9 November 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI))
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: A paradoxical association of obesity with lower risk of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) outcomes has been reported. We aimed to systematically review the literature and compare TAVR-related morbidity and mortality among individuals with overweight or obesity and their peers with normal body mass index (BMI). Methods: PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched for studies reporting TAVR outcomes in different BMI groups. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for studies reporting hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios/relative risks. Short- and mid-/long-term outcomes were examined. Results: 26 studies with a total of 74,163 patients were included in our study. Overweight was associated with lower risk of short-term mortality (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60–0.98) and mid-/long-term mortality (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.70–0.89). Obesity was associated with lower risk for mid-/long-term mortality (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.73–0.86), but no difference was observed in short-term mortality, although a trend was noted (HR: 0.87l 95% CI: 0.74–1.01). Individuals with obesity demonstrated an association with higher odds of major vascular complications (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.05–1.68). Both overweight (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.03–1.30) and obesity (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.06–1.50) were associated with higher likelihood for receiving permanent pacemakers after TAVR. Conclusion: Individuals with overweight and obesity were associated with lower mortality risk compared to those with normal BMI but with higher likelihood of major vascular complications and permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR.

1. Introduction

Obesity is a major public health concern with a disease burden that has tripled over the last 40 years [1]. In 2016, 650 million adults, which is 13% of the adult population globally, were estimated to suffer from obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2), and two billion people were estimated to be overweight (BMI 25–29.9 kg/m2) [1]. Obesity is a well-established risk factor for developing cardiovascular disease and a precursor to significant cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [2]. However, the impact of obesity in individuals undergoing cardiovascular interventions such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is unclear. Despite the prevalence of obesity reaching nearly 15% in patients undergoing TAVR [3] and the annual TAVR volume in the United States overwhelmingly exceeding all forms of surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) (72,991 TAVR in 2019 vs. 57,626 surgical aortic valve replacement), the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and TAVR outcomes remains to be established [4].
Previously published reports evaluating the relationship between overweight or obesity and TAVR-associated mortality have reported conflicting results, wherein some studies paradoxically found individuals with obesity who underwent TAVR to have significantly better long-term survival rates compared to individuals with normal BMI and those who were underweight, an association commonly reported as the “obesity paradox” [5,6,7,8,9,10]. It has been hypothesized that this may be related to individuals with obesity being relatively younger and less frail and thus with a tendency to seek care early, be managed more intensively, and have lower comorbidity burden [5,6,7,11]. Conflicting data also exist in respect to short-term mortality and periprocedural complications. Some studies found an association between individuals with obesity and improved short-term survival after TAVR compared to their counterparts with normal BMI, while others found no significant difference [6,8,9,10,12]. Despite the lack of consensus in current literature, ascertaining the effect of overweight and obesity on TAVR outcomes is clinically relevant, as BMI can serve as a simple pre-procedural risk stratification tool during TAVR evaluation and potentially for other structural heart procedures. With this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the association of baseline overweight and obesity with periprocedural complications and with regards to short- and mid-/long-term mortality risk after TAVR.

2. Methods

This study was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [13]. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022350427).

2.1. Database Search and Study Eligibility

PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for eligible studies published up to June 26, 2022, by two independent researchers (JS and WL). The following search algorithm was adopted: (“transcatheter aortic valve implantation” OR “transcatheter aortic valve replacement” OR TAVI OR TAVR) AND (“body mass index” OR “body weight” OR BMI OR obes* OR overweight OR “body-mass index”). Reference lists of selected articles were additionally reviewed to identify eligible studies potentially excluded from our search algorithm. Any disagreements between two researchers were resolved by consensus of all the authors.
Studies were deemed eligible if (i) TAVR was performed in patients with aortic stenosis, (ii) the objective of the study was to report post-TAVR outcomes based on Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 definitions [14], (iii) comparative analysis based on their BMI was performed, and (iv) there were enough data reported to extract pertinent effect measures such as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR).
Exclusion criteria were: (i) non-English language articles, (ii) duplicate patient population, (iii) lack of data on post-TAVR outcomes between different BMI groups, (iv) underweight population, and (v) surgical aortic valve replacement as the primary procedure performed. Case reports, editorials, reviews, conference abstracts and letters, guidelines, and study designs were excluded. There were no restrictions in terms of patient characteristics, sample size, or TAVR access approaches.

2.2. Data Extraction and Outcomes

Detailed information was extracted from each selected study by two independent reviewers (AK and AT) in a pre-defined data collection form. The following data were collected: (i) study characteristics (study design, location, study period, number of patients, BMI cutoff values, TAVI access approach, follow-up duration), (ii) patient baseline characteristics, (iii) primary outcomes, and (iv) secondary outcomes.
The primary outcomes were defined as short-term (30-day) mortality and mid-/long-term mortality (>1 year of follow up). The secondary outcomes included post-TAVI procedural complications defined as major bleeding, vascular complications, cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, new-onset atrial fibrillation, permanent pacemaker implantation, post-operative delirium, hospital readmission, and acute kidney injury.

2.3. Quality of Evidence Assessment

The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used by two independent researchers (JS and AT) to methodologically assess the quality of non-randomized studies included in the analysis [15]. The NOS score ranges from 0 to 9 and three dimensions contribute to the overall quality score: selection of studies, comparability, and exposure [16]. A score of ≥7 denoted a high-quality study.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables were presented as frequencies or percentages, while continuous variables were listed in the form of means and standard deviations. The number of events, odds ratios (ORs), and hazard ratios (HRs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were collected for primary and secondary outcomes. Bland’s method [17] was used to estimate the mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, and interquartile ranges. Meta-analyses were carried out to compare groups among normal body weight, overweight, and obesity groups. Different BMI cutoff values were utilized when defining each body weight group in selected studies. Analyses were performed based on the group category defined in each article. Adjusted multi-variate ORs or HRs were prioritized for the analysis when available, and if not, unadjusted ORs with 95% confidence intervals were pooled using data from the original studies. Different meta-analyses were conducted for studies reporting HRs vs. ORs/event rates. We used the random-effects model (DerSimonian–Laird) for effect size estimation [18]. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Between-study heterogeneity was assessed through Q-statistic and Higgins I2 test, and high heterogeneity was indicated when p < 0.05 and I2 ≥ 50% [19]. Meta-regression analysis was performed to examine baseline variables with significant interaction with the outcomes. Funnel plots and Egger’s tests were used to assess publication bias, with p<0.05 indicating significant bias [20,21]. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA IC 17.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Characteristics

Of the 1040 records identified, 26 studies were eligible, with a total of 74,163 patients included in our analysis [7,9,10,12,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. The PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Figure 1. All studies were retrospective observational studies published between 2013 and 2022, and follow-up duration ranged from 6 months to 5 years. The definitions of different weight groups were variable. Thirteen studies [7,9,22,23,24,29,32,36,37,39,41,42,43] categorized patients’ BMI (kg/m2) according to World Health Organization definitions [44]: underweight (BMI < 18.5 kg/m2), normal (BMI ≥ 18.5 kg/m2 and <25 kg/m2), overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 and < 30 kg/m2), obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). Overweight and obesity groups were younger with lower logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score but had higher comorbidity (coronary artery disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, hypertension) rates compared to normal BMI group. Details of included studies and patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

3.2. Study Quality Assessment

The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS), with a mean score of 7.9 (supplemental Table S1), suggesting that the included studies were of high quality.

3.3. Primary outcomes

3.3.1. Short-Term Mortality

HR as a measure of short-term mortality comparing patients with overweight vs. patients with normal BMI was available in four studies [24,40,41,43]. The analysis showed an association between overweight status and lower 30-day mortality risk (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60–0.98), but significant heterogeneity and publication bias existed (I2 = 57.1%, Egger test p = 0.0082) (Figure 2A). No difference was seen when we compared patients with obesity vs. patients with normal BMI [24,41,43] (adjusted HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.74–1.01, I2 = 0.0%) (Figure 2B). No significant differences were found between normal BMI versus overweight groups and obesity groups among studies reporting unadjusted ORs (Figure 2C,D).

3.3.2. Mid-/Long-Term Mortality

Eleven and ten studies compared the overweight and obesity groups, respectively, and provided adjusted HR for the comparison with normal BMI with regards to mid-/long-term mortality. Both the overweight (adjusted HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.70–0.89, I2 = 44.47%) and the obesity group (adjusted HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.73–0.86, I2 = 0.0%) had a significantly lower mid-/long-term mortality risk when compared to patients with normal BMI (Figure 3A,B). Pooled analysis of unadjusted ORs in five studies [12,23,26,35,37] confirmed this association for obesity (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.40–0.95, I2 = 40.83%), but no difference was found with regards to the overweight group (OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.63–1.27, I2 = 42.73%) (Figure 3C,D). Only one-year mortality outcomes were pulled for unadjusted ORs, except for the Corcione [23] study, with a mean follow-up ranging 9.8 to 11.8 months.

3.4. Secondary Outcomes

Patients with overweight had a higher likelihood of needing a permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.03–1.30, I2 = 0%) [7,9,12,23,24,25,26,29,31,32,34,35,36,37,43] (Figure 4F) as compared to patients with normal BMI. No significant differences were found in terms of major and life-threatening bleeding (Figure 4A), major vascular complications (Figure 4B), cerebrovascular events (Figure 4C), myocardial infarction (Figure 4D), atrial fibrillation (Figure 4G), and acute kidney injury (Figure 4E) in the overweight group. Patients with obesity were associated with significantly higher odds of major vascular complications (OR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.05–1.68, I2 = 40.85%) [9,10,12,23,24,26,29,31,32,34,35,36,37,42,43] (Figure 5B) and need for permanent pacemaker insertion (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.06–1.50, I2 = 37.33%) [7,9,10,12,23,24,25,26,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,43] (Figure 5F) compared to patients with normal BMI. No statistically significant differences were found in major and life-threatening bleeding (Figure 5A), cerebrovascular events (Figure 5C), myocardial infarction (Figure 5D), atrial fibrillation (Figure 5G), and acute kidney injury (Figure 5E) between obesity and normal BMI groups.
All primary and secondary outcomes are summarized in Table 3 and Table 4.

3.5. Publication Bias and Meta-Regression

The funnel plots and Egger’s test assessing for publication bias are presented in Supplementary Materials Figures S1 and S2 and Table S3, respectively. Only the comparison between overweight and normal BMI patients for short-term mortality showed significant publication bias (Egger test p = 0.0082). No significant associations between baseline characteristics and primary mortality outcomes were identified in our meta-regression analyses (Supplementary Materials Table S2).

4. Discussion

Our study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of BMI on clinical outcomes after TAVR. The key findings of our study can be summarized as follows: (i) overweight status was associated with lower risk for short- and mid-/long-term mortality; (ii) obesity was associated with lower risk of mid-/long-term mortality; (iii) overweight and obesity were associated with higher risk of receiving permanent pacemakers after TAVR; and (iv) the obesity group was associated with a higher likelihood of major vascular complications.
While some studies have found one point increments in BMI (kg/m2) to be associated with progressively improved long-term mortality [5,6], other studies such as the one conducted by Gilard et al. [45] including 4571 TAVR patients found a higher risk of mortality with increasing BMI among patients with BMI > 32 kg/m2. Similarly, a study of 31,929 TAVR patients [41] showed that in patients with BMI > 30 kg/m2, a unit increase in BMI was associated with a 3% increased risk of short-term mortality. Both studies limited their analyses among patients with obesity. This probably shows that when studying the obesity-only sub-group, higher BMI is associated with worse outcomes. Contrary to that, when comparing any obesity or overweight status to patients with underweight or normal BMI, extra weight seems to be associated with protective effects. This can be explained by higher frailty or life-threatening diseases (i.e., end-stage cancer, advanced heart failure) associated with underweight and low-normal BMI populations both in procedures such as TAVR and under transcatheter interventions such as Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair [11,46,47,48,49]. Although our study excluded the underweight population, there was inconsistency among included studies that compared frailty in different BMI groups: Abawi [24] and Berti [22] reported no difference between BMI groups; Tokarek [7] and Abramowitz [9] reported lower frailty in the obesity group compared to normal BMI and overweight counterparts; Luo [34] and Quine [37] reported rather higher frailty in the higher BMI group compared to other BMI groups. No included studies reported malnutrition data. Our study used multi-variate hazard ratios for the outcome of mortality to adjust for all these confounding factors when comparing normal BMI versus overweight and obesity groups. However, different studies adjusted for different characteristics and thus, even if the meta-analysis included adjusted HRs, this does not necessarily mean that it is adjusted for the same factors.
We found that obesity was associated with significantly higher likelihood of major vascular complications. It is interesting that our analysis shows that this is an issue only for the obesity group and not for individuals with overweight. This is expected, given how challenging femoral large-bore arterial access can be in individuals with significant fat tissue around groin. However, this was not shown by prior studies, with some of them finding no difference [5]. The Valve Academic Research Consortium (VARC)-3 strongly recommends recording detailed information regarding the access site and pre-planned vascular closure technique to better assess vascular complications in TAVR patients [50]. It also even provides different cut-off values for patients with obesity (BMI > 30) when assessing device success and prosthesis–patient mismatch, which is directly associated with all-cause and cardiac mortality [51]. This indicates that distinction should be made when studying outcomes of TAVR patients with different BMIs. Studies included in our meta-analyses, however, combined different access sites and vascular techniques, making it unclear whether specific access sites and/or vascular closure techniques are superior to others in limiting major vascular complication across different BMI categories.
An estimated 6–28% of patients undergoing TAVR receive permanent pacemakers [52]. The association between overweight or obesity and an increased risk of requiring permanent pacemakers after TAVR is not well-established in current literature. However, our study found both overweight and obesity to be associated with an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation after TAVR. Although multiple etiologies have been postulated to explain the occurrence of bradycardia requiring a pacemaker after TAVR (pre-existence of right bundle branch block, direct injury to atrioventricular and infranodal tissues, the use of self-expandable valve, male gender, baseline conduction abnormalities, larger prosthesis size, porcelain aorta, and increased implantation depth) [25,52,53,54,55], we suspect that larger prosthesis size requirements in patients with high BMI is probably contributing to our study findings [9,10,23,25].
Our study was unable to provide insights on the pathophysiology of obesity influencing favorable TAVR outcomes. Many possible mechanisms were introduced in other studies to explain the paradoxical phenomenon, including less frailty, younger population, early-on intensive medical interventions, protective peripheral body fat, and reduced inflammatory response with increased TNF-α receptors, but still the exact etiology remains unclear [5,6,9,56,57]. It is possible that the non-overweight/non-obesity groups had much higher likelihood of frailty, which is known to be associated with adverse outcomes post-TAVR [11,46], although no association between age and mortality was identified in our meta-regression analysis. It also remains unclear whether BMI can be adopted as the appropriate surrogate to investigate the true effect of overweight and obesity status of TAVR patients. Even if BMI is commonly used to define obesity, it is a relatively crude marker without accounting for the distribution of adipose tissue, especially visceral fat, which has been reported to have strong association with outcomes in cardiovascular disease, including for TAVR patients [58,59,60,61]. Future studies using other indicators such as body surface area (BSA) [62], pre-TAVR assessment of visceral abdominal fat using CT scan [10,63], waist-to-hip ratio of central obesity, or a combination of these may provide better understanding of obesity’s effect on TAVR outcomes.

5. Limitations

Our study has several important limitations. First, all studies included in our meta-analysis were retrospective in nature and were inherently susceptible to confounding factors. Second, the limited number of studies for certain important outcomes could have influenced the generalizability of our findings and precluded us from analyzing outcomes such as risk of readmission. Third, post-TAVR complications were derived from unadjusted, univariate data, which could not be adjusted by other confounding factors such as age or frailty. Frailty is known to be associated with negative outcomes after TAVR [64,65]. A multi-variate analysis would be helpful to draw additional conclusions. Fourth, various definitions of BMI categorization among all the included studies may have led to the heterogeneity observed in our analysis, necessitating the usage of standardized BMI classification (i.e., WHO definition) in future studies. Nonetheless, this study serves as the most updated meta-analysis on this topic to the best of our knowledge and highlights significant knowledge gaps and areas of future research.

6. Conclusions

Overweight and obesity—despite increasing the risk for vascular complications and permanent pacemaker insertion—were associated with improved survival likelihood after TAVR. Despite this strong association observed in the included observational analyses and in our systematic review and meta-analysis, we think that this might be driven by residual confounding by age, frailty, and other similar factors, which are more common in the normal or low BMI groups. We hope that future, well-designed, prospective cohort studies will shed light into this association and confirm whether there is a true obesity paradox or just unmeasured confounding.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcdd9110386/s1, Table S1: Newcastle–Ottawa scale; Table S2. Meta-regression analyses for primary outcomes in normal BMI versus patients with overweight and obesity; Figure S1. Funnel plots for mortality outcomes in normal BMI (Nl) versus patients with overweight (OW); Figure S2. Funnel plots for mortality outcomes in normal BMI (Nl) versus patients with obesity (OB).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.G.K.; methodology, J.S. and W.L.; validation, L.P., D.G.K. and J.S.; formal analysis, I.S. and J.S.; investigation, A.K., S.N. and A.T.; data curation, J.S.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S. and S.N.; writing—review and editing, I.D., L.K., S.R., L.P., D.G.K. and J.S.; visualization, I.S. and J.S.; supervision, L.P. and D.G.K.; project administration, J.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Obesity and Overweight. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight (accessed on 23 July 2022).
  2. Poirier, P.; Giles, T.D.; Bray, G.A.; Hong, Y.; Stern, J.S.; Pi-Sunyer, F.X.; Eckel, R.H. Obesity and cardiovascular disease: Pathophysiology, evaluation, and effect of weight loss: An update of the 1997 American Heart Association Scientific State-ment on Obesity and Heart Disease from the Obesity Committee of the Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabo-lism. Circulation 2006, 113, 898–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Alperi, A.; McInerney, A.; Modine, T.; Chamandi, C.; Tafur-Soto, J.D.; Barbanti, M.; Lopez, D.; Campelo-Parada, F.; Cheema, A.N.; Toggweiler, S.; et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in obese patients: Procedural vascular complications with the trans-femoral and trans-carotid access routes. Interact. CardioVascular Thorac. Surg. 2021, 34, 982–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Carroll, J.D.; Mack, M.J.; Vemulapalli, S.; Herrmann, H.C.; Gleason, T.G.; Hanzel, G.; Deeb, G.M.; Thourani, V.H.; Cohen, D.J.; Desai, N.; et al. STS-ACC TVT Registry of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 2492–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lv, W.; Li, S.; Liao, Y.; Zhao, Z.; Che, G.; Chen, M.; Feng, Y. The ‘obesity paradox’ does exist in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation for aortic stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Interact. Cardiovasc. Thorac. Surg. 2017, 25, 633–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Sannino, A.; Schiattarella, G.G.; Toscano, E.; Gargiulo, G.; Giugliano, G.; Galderisi, M.; Losi, M.A.; Stabile, E.; Cirillo, P.; Imbriaco, M.; et al. Meta-Analysis of Effect of Body Mass Index on Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2017, 119, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Tokarek, T.A.; Dziewierz, A.; Sorysz, D.; Bagienski, M.; Rzeszutko, Ł.; Krawczyk-Ożóg, A.; Dudek, D.; Kleczyński, P. The obesity paradox in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Is there any effect of body mass index on survival? Kardiol. Pol. 2019, 77, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. van Nieuwkerk, A.; Santos, R.B.; Sartori, S.; Regueiro, A.; Tchétché, D.; Mehran, R.; Delewi, R.; the CENTER collaboration. Impact of body mass index on outcomes in patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation. JTCVS Open 2021, 6, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Abramowitz, Y.; Chakravarty, T.; Jilaihawi, H.; Cox, J.; Sharma, R.P.; Mangat, G.; Nakamura, M.; Cheng, W.; Makkar, R.R. Impact of body mass index on the outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 88, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. McInerney, A.; Tirado-Conte, G.; Rodes-Cabau, J.; Campelo-Parada, F.; Tafur Soto, J.D.; Barbanti, M.; Munoz-Garcia, E.; Arif, M.; Lopez, D.; Toggweiler, S.; et al. Impact of Morbid Obesity and Obesity Phenotype on Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2021, 10, e019051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tzoumas, A.; Kokkinidis, D.G.; Giannopoulos, S.; Giannakoulas, G.; Palaiodimos, L.; Avgerinos, D.V.; Kampaktsis, P.N.; Faillace, R.T. Frailty in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement: From risk scores to frailty-based management. J. Geriatr. Cardiol. 2021, 18, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boukhris, M.; Forcillo, J.; Potvin, J.; Noiseux, N.; Stevens, L.M.; Badreddine, M.; Gobeil, J.F.; Masson, J.B. Does “obesity paradox” apply for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement? Arch. Cardiovasc. Dis. Suppl. 2022, 14, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kappetein, A.P.; Head, S.J.; Genereux, P.; Piazza, N.; van Mieghem, N.M.; Blackstone, E.H.; Brott, T.G.; Cohen, D.J.; Cutlip, D.E.; van Es, G.A.; et al. Updated standardized endpoint definitions for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 consensus document (VARC-2). Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2012, 42, S45–S60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zeng, X.; Zhang, Y.; Kwong, J.S.; Zhang, C.; Li, S.; Sun, F.; Niu, Y.; Du, L. The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: A systematic review. J. Evid. Based Med. 2015, 8, 2–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wan, X.; Wang, W.; Liu, J.; Tong, T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. DerSimonian, R.; Laird, N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin. Trials 1986, 7, 177–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Higgins, J.P.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Sterne, J.A.; Sutton, A.J.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Terrin, N.; Jones, D.R.; Lau, J.; Carpenter, J.; Rucker, G.; Harbord, R.M.; Schmid, C.H.; et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d4002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Hunter, J.P.; Saratzis, A.; Sutton, A.J.; Boucher, R.H.; Sayers, R.D.; Bown, M.J. In meta-analyses of proportion studies, funnel plots were found to be an inaccurate method of assessing publication bias. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2014, 67, 897–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Berti, S.; Bartorelli, A.L.; Koni, E.; Giordano, A.; Petronio, A.S.; Iadanza, A.; Bedogni, F.; Reimers, B.; Spaccarotella, C.; Trani, C.; et al. Impact of High Body Mass Index on Vascular and Bleeding Complications After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2021, 155, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Corcione, N.; Testa, A.; Ferraro, P.; Morello, A.; Cimmino, M.; Albanese, M.; Giordano, S.; Bedogni, F.; Iadanza, A.; Berti, S.; et al. Baseline, procedural and outcome features of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation according to different body mass index categories. Minerva Med. 2021, 112, 474–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Abawi, M.; Rozemeijer, R.; Agostoni, P.; van Jaarsveld, R.C.; van Dongen, C.S.; Voskuil, M.; Kraaijeveld, A.O.; Doevendans, P.; Stella, P.R. Effect of body mass index on clinical outcome and all-cause mortality in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Neth. Heart J. 2017, 25, 498–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ahmad, M.; Patel, J.N.; Loc, B.L.; Vipparthy, S.C.; Divecha, C.; Barzallo, P.X.; Kim, M.; Baman, T.; Barzallo, M.; Mungee, S. Association Between Body Mass Index and Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) with Edwards SAPIEN 3 TAVR Valves: A Single-Center Experience. Cureus 2019, 11, e5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. De Marzo, V.; Crimi, G.; Benenati, S.; Buscaglia, A.; Pescetelli, F.; Vercellino, M.; Della Bona, R.; Sarocchi, M.; Canepa, M.; Ameri, P.; et al. BMI and acute kidney injury post transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Unveiling the obesity paradox. J. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 22, 579–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. De Palma, R.; Ivarsson, J.; Feldt, K.; Saleh, N.; Ruck, A.; Linder, R.; Settergren, M. The obesity paradox: An analysis of pre-procedure weight trajectory on survival outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Obes. Res. Clin. Pract. 2018, 12, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gonska, B.; Reuter, C.; Morike, J.; Rottbauer, W.; Buckert, D. Vascular Access Site Complications Do Not Correlate With Large Sheath Diameter in TAVI Procedures With New Generation Devices. Front. Cardiovasc. Med. 2021, 8, 738854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gonzalez-Ferreiro, R.; Munoz-Garcia, A.J.; Lopez-Otero, D.; Avanzas, P.; Pascual, I.; Alonso-Briales, J.H.; Trillo-Nouche, R.; Pun, F.; Jimenez-Navarro, M.F.; Hernandez-Garcia, J.M.; et al. Prognostic value of body mass index in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A “J”-shaped curve. Int. J. Cardiol. 2017, 232, 342–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kische, S.; D’Ancona, G.; Agma, H.U.; El-Achkar, G.; Dissmann, M.; Ortak, J.; Oner, A.; Ketterer, U.; Barisch, A.; Levenson, B.; et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in obese patients: Overcoming technical challenges and maintaining adequate hemodynamic performance using new generation prostheses. Int. J. Cardiol. 2016, 220, 909–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Koifman, E.; Kiramijyan, S.; Negi, S.I.; Didier, R.; Escarcega, R.O.; Minha, S.; Gai, J.; Torguson, R.; Okubagzi, P.; Ben-Dor, I.; et al. Body mass index association with survival in severe aortic stenosis patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 88, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Konigstein, M.; Havakuk, O.; Arbel, Y.; Finkelstein, A.; Ben-Assa, E.; Leshem Rubinow, E.; Abramowitz, Y.; Keren, G.; Banai, S. The obesity paradox in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin. Cardiol. 2015, 38, 76–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Iung, B.; Laouenan, C.; Himbert, D.; Eltchaninoff, H.; Chevreul, K.; Donzeau-Gouge, P.; Fajadet, J.; Leprince, P.; Leguerrier, A.; Lievre, M.; et al. Predictive factors of early mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Individual risk assessment using a simple score. Heart 2014, 100, 1016–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Luo, Z.R.; Chen, L.W.; Qiu, H.F. Does the “obesity paradox” exist after transcatheter aortic valve implantation? J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2022, 17, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Om, S.Y.; Ko, E.; Ahn, J.M.; Kang, D.Y.; Lee, K.; Kwon, O.; Lee, P.H.; Lee, S.W.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, J.B.; et al. Relation of Body Mass Index to Risk of Death or Stroke in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2019, 123, 638–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Owais, T.; El Garhy, M.; Lauten, P.; Haensig, M.; Lapp, H.; Schulze, P.C.; Kuntze, T. Contemporary Results of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Obese Patients. Cardiol. Res. Pract. 2020, 2020, 9732943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Quine, E.J.; Dagan, M.; William, J.; Nanayakkara, S.; Dawson, L.P.; Duffy, S.J.; Stehli, J.; Dick, R.J.; Htun, N.M.; Stub, D.; et al. Long-Term Outcomes Stratified by Body Mass Index in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2020, 137, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Saji, M.; Kumamaru, H.; Kohsaka, S.; Higuchi, R.; Izumi, Y.; Takamisawa, I.; Tobaru, T.; Shimokawa, T.; Takanashi, S.; Shimizu, H.; et al. Non-cardiovascular readmissions after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Insights from a Japanese nationwide registry of transcatheter valve therapies. J. Cardiol. 2022, 80, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Salizzoni, S.; D’Onofrio, A.; Agrifoglio, M.; Colombo, A.; Chieffo, A.; Cioni, M.; Besola, L.; Regesta, T.; Rapetto, F.; Tarantini, G.; et al. Early and mid-term outcomes of 1904 patients undergoing transcatheter balloon-expandable valve implantation in Italy: Results from the Italian Transcatheter Balloon-Expandable Valve Implantation Registry (ITER). Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 2016, 50, 1139–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Sgura, F.A.; Arrotti, S.; Monopoli, D.; Valenti, A.C.; Vitolo, M.; Magnavacchi, P.; Tondi, S.; Gabbieri, D.; Guiducci, V.; Benatti, G.; et al. Impact of body mass index on the outcome of elderly patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Intern. Emerg. Med. 2022, 17, 369–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sharma, A.; Lavie, C.J.; Elmariah, S.; Borer, J.S.; Sharma, S.K.; Vemulapalli, S.; Yerokun, B.A.; Li, Z.; Matsouaka, R.A.; Marmur, J.D. Relationship of Body Mass Index With Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data-STS/ACC TVT Registry. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2020, 95, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. van der Boon, R.M.; Chieffo, A.; Dumonteil, N.; Tchetche, D.; Van Mieghem, N.M.; Buchanan, G.L.; Vahdat, O.; Marcheix, B.; Serruys, P.W.; Fajadet, J.; et al. Effect of body mass index on short- and long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2013, 111, 231–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yamamoto, M.; Mouillet, G.; Oguri, A.; Gilard, M.; Laskar, M.; Eltchaninoff, H.; Fajadet, J.; Iung, B.; Donzeau-Gouge, P.; Leprince, P.; et al. Effect of body mass index on 30- and 365-day complication and survival rates of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (from the FRench Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards 2 [FRANCE 2] registry). Am. J. Cardiol. 2013, 112, 1932–1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Obesity: Preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organ. Tech. Rep. Ser. 2000, 894, 1–253. [Google Scholar]
  45. Gilard, M.; Schluter, M.; Snow, T.M.; Dall’Ara, G.; Eltchaninoff, H.; Moat, N.; Goicolea, J.; Ussia, G.P.; Kala, P.; Wenaweser, P.; et al. The 2011–2012 pilot European Society of Cardiology Sentinel Registry of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: 12-month clinical outcomes. EuroIntervention 2016, 12, 79–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Afilalo, J.; Lauck, S.; Kim, D.H.; Lefevre, T.; Piazza, N.; Lachapelle, K.; Martucci, G.; Lamy, A.; Labinaz, M.; Peterson, M.D.; et al. Frailty in Older Adults Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement: The FRAILTY-AVR Study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2017, 70, 689–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bendayan, M.; Messas, N.; Perrault, L.P.; Asgar, A.W.; Lauck, S.; Kim, D.H.; Arora, R.C.; Langlois, Y.; Piazza, N.; Martucci, G.; et al. Frailty and Bleeding in Older Adults Undergoing TAVR or SAVR: Insights From the FRAILTY-AVR Study. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2020, 13, 1058–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kokkinidis, D.G.; Arfaras-Melainis, A.; Giannakoulas, G. Sarcopenia in heart failure: ‘waste’ the appropriate time and resources, not the muscles. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2021, 28, 1019–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rios, S.; Li, W.; Mustehsan, M.H.; Hajra, A.; Takahashi, T.; Chengyue, J.; Wu, L.; Katamreddy, A.; Ghalib, N.; Scotti, A.; et al. Impact of Frailty on Outcomes After Transcatheter Edge-to-Edge Repair With MitraClip (from the National Inpatient Sample Database). Am. J. Cardiol. 2022, 179, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Varc-3 Writing, C.; Genereux, P.; Piazza, N.; Alu, M.C.; Nazif, T.; Hahn, R.T.; Pibarot, P.; Bax, J.J.; Leipsic, J.A.; Blanke, P.; et al. Valve Academic Research Consortium 3: Updated endpoint definitions for aortic valve clinical research. Eur. Heart J. 2021, 42, 1825–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Head, S.J.; Mokhles, M.M.; Osnabrugge, R.L.; Pibarot, P.; Mack, M.J.; Takkenberg, J.J.; Bogers, A.J.; Kappetein, A.P. The impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years. Eur. Heart J. 2012, 33, 1518–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Fadahunsi, O.O.; Olowoyeye, A.; Ukaigwe, A.; Li, Z.; Vora, A.N.; Vemulapalli, S.; Elgin, E.; Donato, A. Incidence, Predictors, and Outcomes of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Analysis From the U.S. Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology TVT Registry. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2016, 9, 2189–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Siontis, G.C.; Juni, P.; Pilgrim, T.; Stortecky, S.; Bullesfeld, L.; Meier, B.; Wenaweser, P.; Windecker, S. Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR: A meta-analysis. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2014, 64, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bax, J.J.; Delgado, V.; Bapat, V.; Baumgartner, H.; Collet, J.P.; Erbel, R.; Hamm, C.; Kappetein, A.P.; Leipsic, J.; Leon, M.B.; et al. Open issues in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Part 2: Procedural issues and outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur. Heart J. 2014, 35, 2639–2654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ledwoch, J.; Franke, J.; Gerckens, U.; Kuck, K.H.; Linke, A.; Nickenig, G.; Krulls-Munch, J.; Vohringer, M.; Hambrecht, R.; Erbel, R.; et al. Incidence and predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation following transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Analysis from the German transcatheter aortic valve interventions registry. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 2013, 82, E569–E577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Mohamed-Ali, V.; Goodrick, S.; Bulmer, K.; Holly, J.M.; Yudkin, J.S.; Coppack, S.W. Production of soluble tumor necrosis factor receptors by human subcutaneous adipose tissue in vivo. Am. J. Physiol. 1999, 277, E971–E975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Chrysant, S.G.; Chrysant, G.S. New insights into the true nature of the obesity paradox and the lower cardiovascular risk. J. Am. Soc. Hypertens. 2013, 7, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Srikanthan, P.; Horwich, T.B.; Tseng, C.H. Relation of Muscle Mass and Fat Mass to Cardiovascular Disease Mortality. Am. J. Cardiol. 2016, 117, 1355–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mok, M.; Allende, R.; Leipsic, J.; Altisent, O.A.; Del Trigo, M.; Campelo-Parada, F.; DeLarochelliere, R.; Dumont, E.; Doyle, D.; Cote, M.; et al. Prognostic Value of Fat Mass and Skeletal Muscle Mass Determined by Computed Tomography in Patients Who Underwent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation. Am. J. Cardiol. 2016, 117, 828–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Carbone, S.; Billingsley, H.E.; Rodriguez-Miguelez, P.; Kirkman, D.L.; Garten, R.; Franco, R.L.; Lee, D.C.; Lavie, C.J. Lean Mass Abnormalities in Heart Failure: The Role of Sarcopenia, Sarcopenic Obesity, and Cachexia. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 2020, 45, 100417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ortega, F.B.; Sui, X.; Lavie, C.J.; Blair, S.N. Body Mass Index, the Most Widely Used But Also Widely Criticized Index: Would a Criterion Standard Measure of Total Body Fat Be a Better Predictor of Cardiovascular Disease Mortality? Mayo Clin. Proc. 2016, 91, 443–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Arsalan, M.; Filardo, G.; Kim, W.K.; Squiers, J.J.; Pollock, B.; Liebetrau, C.; Blumenstein, J.; Kempfert, J.; Van Linden, A.; Arsalan-Werner, A.; et al. Prognostic value of body mass index and body surface area on clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 2016, 105, 1042–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kandathil, A.; Mills, R.A.; Hanna, M.; Merchant, A.M.; Wehrmann, L.E.; Minhajuddin, A.; Abbara, S.; Fox, A.A. Abdominal adiposity assessed using CT angiography associates with acute kidney injury after trans-catheter aortic valve replacement. Clin. Radiol. 2020, 75, 921–926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Kokkinidis, D.G.; Armstrong, E.J.; Giri, J. Balancing Weight Loss and Sarcopenia in Elderly Patients With Peripheral Artery Disease. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2019, 8, e013200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Green, P.; Arnold, S.V.; Cohen, D.J.; Kirtane, A.J.; Kodali, S.K.; Brown, D.L.; Rihal, C.S.; Xu, K.; Lei, Y.; Hawkey, M.C.; et al. Relation of frailty to outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (from the PARTNER trial). Am. J. Cardiol. 2015, 116, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcdd 09 00386 g001 550
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of the study selection process.
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of the study selection process.
Jcdd 09 00386 g001
Jcdd 09 00386 g002 550
Figure 2. Short-term (30-day) mortality after TAVR among different BMI categories. (A) Normal BMI vs. Overweight. (B) Normal BMI vs. Obesity. (C), Normal BMI vs. Overweight. (D) Normal BMI vs. Obesity. HR: hazard ratio; Nl: normal BMI; OW: overweight; OB: obesity; OR: odds ratio [7,9,10,12,23,24,26,30,31,34,37,40,41,42,43].
Figure 2. Short-term (30-day) mortality after TAVR among different BMI categories. (A) Normal BMI vs. Overweight. (B) Normal BMI vs. Obesity. (C), Normal BMI vs. Overweight. (D) Normal BMI vs. Obesity. HR: hazard ratio; Nl: normal BMI; OW: overweight; OB: obesity; OR: odds ratio [7,9,10,12,23,24,26,30,31,34,37,40,41,42,43].
Jcdd 09 00386 g002
Jcdd 09 00386 g003 550
Figure 3. Long-term mortality after TAVR among different BMI categories. (A) Normal BMI vs. Overweight. (B) Normal BMI vs. Obesity. (C) Normal BMI vs. Overweight. (D) Normal BMI vs. Obesity. HR: hazard ratio; Nl: normal BMI; OW: overweight; OB: obesity; OR: odds ratio [9,12,23,24,26,27,29,31,34,35,37,39,40,41,43].
Figure 3. Long-term mortality after TAVR among different BMI categories. (A) Normal BMI vs. Overweight. (B) Normal BMI vs. Obesity. (C) Normal BMI vs. Overweight. (D) Normal BMI vs. Obesity. HR: hazard ratio; Nl: normal BMI; OW: overweight; OB: obesity; OR: odds ratio [9,12,23,24,26,27,29,31,34,35,37,39,40,41,43].
Jcdd 09 00386 g003
Jcdd 09 00386 g004 550
Figure 4. Complication rates after TAVR between normal BMI and overweight categories. (A) Major bleeding. (B) Major vascular complications. (C) Cerebrovascular events. (D) Myocardial infarction. (E) Acute kidney injury. (F) Permanent pacemaker insertion. (G) Atrial fibrillation. Nl: normal BMI; OW: overweight; OB: obesity; OR: odds ratio [7,9,12,22,23,24,25,26,29,31,32,34,35,36,37,42,43].
Figure 4. Complication rates after TAVR between normal BMI and overweight categories. (A) Major bleeding. (B) Major vascular complications. (C) Cerebrovascular events. (D) Myocardial infarction. (E) Acute kidney injury. (F) Permanent pacemaker insertion. (G) Atrial fibrillation. Nl: normal BMI; OW: overweight; OB: obesity; OR: odds ratio [7,9,12,22,23,24,25,26,29,31,32,34,35,36,37,42,43].
Jcdd 09 00386 g004
Jcdd 09 00386 g005 550
Figure 5. Complication rates after TAVR between normal BMI and obesity categories. (A) Major bleeding. (B) Major vascular complications. (C) Cerebrovascular events. (D) Myocardial infarction. (E) Acute kidney injury. (F) Permanent pacemaker insertion. (G) Atrial fibrillation. Nl: normal BMI; OW: overweight; OB: obesity; OR: odds ratio [9,10,12,23,24,25,26,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,42,43].
Figure 5. Complication rates after TAVR between normal BMI and obesity categories. (A) Major bleeding. (B) Major vascular complications. (C) Cerebrovascular events. (D) Myocardial infarction. (E) Acute kidney injury. (F) Permanent pacemaker insertion. (G) Atrial fibrillation. Nl: normal BMI; OW: overweight; OB: obesity; OR: odds ratio [9,10,12,23,24,25,26,29,30,31,32,34,35,36,37,42,43].
Jcdd 09 00386 g005
Table
Table 1. Summary of the included studies.
Table 1. Summary of the included studies.
StudyYearCountryStudy CharacteristicStudy Population (n)Follow-Up Duration (months)BMI Classification (kg/m2)Vascular Access
Abawi et al. [24]2017Netherlandsretrospective single center56212WHO definitionTf, Ta, Tao
Abramowitz et al. [9]2016USAretrospective single center80533WHO definitionTf, Ta, Tao, S
Ahmad et al. [25]2019USAretrospective single center269N/AUnderweight < 25
Normal 25 –≤ 30
Overweight 30 –≤ 35
Obesity ≥ 35		N/A
Berti et al. [22]2021Italyretrospective single center3776N/AWHO definitionN/A
Boukhris et al. [12]2021Canadaretrospective single center41212Underweight < 20
Normal 20 –< 25
Overweight 25 –< 30
Obesity ≥ 30		Tf
Corcione et al. [23]2021Italyretrospective single center3075(mean): 9.8–11.8WHO definitionN/A
DeMarzo et al. [26]2021Italyretrospective single center64512Low to normal < 25
Overweight 25 –< 30
Obesity ≥ 30		Tf, Ta, S
DePalma et al. [27]2018Swedenretrospective single center49336Underweight < 18
Normal 18—25
Overweight 25.1–30
Obesity > 30
Severe obesity > 35		Tf, S, Ta, O
Gonska et al. [28]2021Germanyretrospective single center611N/ABMI ≥ 25Tf
Gonzalez-Ferreiro et al. [29]2017Spainretrospective multi-center77036WHO definitionTf, Tax
Kische et al. [30]2016Germanyretrospective17212Non-obesity BMI < 30
Obesity BMI ≥ 30		Tf
Koifman et al. [31]2016USAretrospective single center44812Low <20
Normal 20–24.9
Overweight 25–30
Obesity > 30		Tf
Konigstein et al. [32]2015Israelretrospective single center4092WHO definitionTf
Lung et al. [33]2014Franceretrospective multi-center25521Low < 18.5
Normal 18.5–29.9
Overweight BMI ≥ 30		Tf, Ta, S, O
Luo et al. [34]2022Chinaretrospective single center10935Low < 21.9
Middle 21.9–27.0
High > 27.0		Tf, Ta
McInerney et al. [10]2021Europe, USAretrospective multi-center317424Non-obesity 18.5–29.9
Morbidly obesity ≥40 or ≥35 with obesity-related comorbidities		Tf, non-Tf
Om et al. [35]2019Korearetrospective multi-center379(median): 18.4 (IQR 7.3 to 37.2)First tertile ≤ 22.3
Second tertile 22.4–24.8
Third tertile ≥ 24.9		Tf, Ta, Tao
Owais et al. [36]2020Germanyretrospective single center160912WHO definitionTf
Quine et al. [37]2020Australiaretrospective multi-center634(median): 24WHO definitionTf, S, Ta, O
Saji et al. [38]2022Japanretrospective multi-center1447212Underweight < 20
Normal 20–25
Overweight 25–30
Obesity ≥ 30		Tf, non-Tf
Salizzoni et al. [39]2016Italyretrospective multi-center1904(median): 25.7 (IQR 15.6 to 37.5)WHO definitionTf, Ta, Tao, Tax
Sgura et al. [40]2022Italyretrospective multi-center794(median): 26.4underweight < 20
Normal 20–24.9
Overweight/Obesity ≥ 25		Tf, Ta
Sharma et al. [41]2020USAretrospective multi-center3192912WHO definitionTf, Ta, Tao, S, O
Tokarek et al. [7]2019Polandretrospective single center148(median): 15.3 (IQR 6 to 34.7)WHO definitionTf, Ta, Tao, S
Van der Boon et al. [42]2013Europeretrospective multi-center940(median): 12 (IQR 6 to 18)WHO definitionTf, Ta, S, O
Yamamoto et al. [43]2013Franceretrospective multi-center3072(median): 4.1 (IQR 1 to 8.3)WHO definitionTf, Ta, S, O
BMI: body mass index; S: subclavian; Tao: transaortic; Ta: transapical; Tf: transfemoral; Tax: trans-axillary; O: others; IQR: interquartile range; WHO definition of BMI (kg/m2): underweight: (BMI < 18.5), normal: (BMI ≥ 18.5 and <25), overweight: (BMI ≥ 25 and <30), obesity: (BMI ≥ 30).
Table
Table 2. Basic characteristics of normal, overweight, and obesity BMI patients.
Table 2. Basic characteristics of normal, overweight, and obesity BMI patients.
NormalOverweightObesity
Age (years)71.0 ± 24.365.9 ± 37.867.6 ± 19.1
Male n (%)9198/19,032 (48.3)10,187/18,919 (53.8)4425/9571 (46.2)
BMI (kg/m2)22.8 ± 2.627.6 ± 3.334.5 ± 5.9
AF n (%)1191/3536 (33.7)869/2947 (29.5)776/2390 (32.5)
CAD n (%)10,256/17,154 (59.8)10,562/17,171 (61.5)5433/8627 (63)
CKD n (%)623/2847 (21.9)898/3595 (25)93/688 (13.5)
COPD n (%)1306/6286 (20.8)1140/5377 (21.2)1021/3601 (28.4)
DM n (%)2058/8277 (24.9)2471/8228 (30)1770/3989 (44.4)
Dyslipidemia n (%)2780/5133 (54.2)3283/5523 (59.4)1668/2486 (67.1)
HTN n (%)14,450/17,389 (83.1)15,229/17,544 (86.8)7994/8933 (89.5)
GFR (mL/min/m2)57.1 ± 71.857.1 ± 71.053.1 ± 58.1
logistic EuroSCORE18.0 ± 12.617.7 ± 11.914.5 ± 10.7
STS score6.1 ± 3.75.3 ± 3.54.8 ± 2.6
Categorical variables are presented as frequencies and percentages, while continuous variables are listed in the form of means and standard deviations. BMI: body mass index; AF: atrial fibrillation; CAD: coronary artery disease; CKD: chronic kidney disease; COPD: chronic obstructive disease; DM: diabetes mellitus; HTN: hypertension; GFR: glomerular filtration rate; EuroSCORE: European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation; STS: Society of Thoracic Surgeons; SD: standard deviation.
Table
Table 3. Summary of meta-analyses for all outcomes in normal BMI versus patients with overweight.
Table 3. Summary of meta-analyses for all outcomes in normal BMI versus patients with overweight.
OutcomesStudiesPatientsHR/OR95% CI, p-ValueI2 (%)Egger Test
Primary
30-day Mortality425,0500.77 (HR)[0.60, 0.98], p = 0.0357.090.0082
1060300.82 (OR)[0.61, 1.09], p = 0.174.360.6904
Mid-/long-term Mortality1128,9170.79 (HR)[0.70, 0.89], p = 0.0044.470.8864
539780.89 (OR)[0.63, 1.27], p = 0.5242.730.5304
Secondary
Major Bleeding1411,7241.08 (OR)[0.92, 1.27], p = 0.338.920.5321
Major Vascular Complications1411,8751.09 (OR)[0.92, 1.29], p = 0.3100.8544
Cerebrovascular events1399401.11 (OR)[0.86, 1.42], p = 0.4300.3950
Myocardial Infarction874270.69 (OR)[0.36, 1.34], p = 0.2723.370.8140
Atrial Fibrillation523620.78 (OR)[0.58, 1.04], p = 0.0900.7519
Pacemaker Insertion1510,0711.16 (OR)[1.03, 1.30], p = 0.0100.9191
Acute Kidney Injury1273381.04 (OR)[0.82, 1.32], p = 0.7323.730.9639
HR: Hazard ratio; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Table
Table 4. Summary of meta-analyses for all outcomes in normal BMI versus patients with obesity.
Table 4. Summary of meta-analyses for all outcomes in normal BMI versus patients with obesity.
OutcomesStudiesPatientsHR/OR95% CI, p-ValueI2 (%)Egger Test
Primary
30-day Mortality318,6130.87 (HR)[0.74, 1.01], p = 0.0700.2995
1264610.8 (OR)[0.59, 1.08], p = 0.1400.0711
Mid-/long-term Mortality1021,2620.79 (HR)[0.73, 0.86], p = 0.0000.7745
531730.62 (OR)[0.40, 0.95], p = 0.0340.830.8486
Secondary
Major Bleeding1610,0421.1 (OR)[0.86, 1.41], p = 0.4654.360.3594
Major Vascular Complications1510,0331.33 (OR)[1.05, 1.68], p = 0.0240.850.4458
Cerebrovascular events1493831.01 (OR)[0.76, 1.35], p = 0.9400.4143
Myocardial Infarction858040.72 (OR)[0.39, 1.34], p = 0.300.7074
Atrial Fibrillation518760.68 (OR)[0.40, 1.17], p = 0.1646.850.0648
Pacemaker Insertion1798781.26 (OR)[1.06, 1.50], p = 0.0137.330.5568
Acute Kidney Injury1474851.09 (OR)[0.93, 1.29], p = 0.2800.2912
HR: Hazard ratio; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Seo, J.; Li, W.; Safiriyu, I.; Kharawala, A.; Nagraj, S.; Tahir, A.; Doundoulakis, I.; Koliastasis, L.; Rios, S.; Palaiodimos, L.; et al. A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of High BMI in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2022, 9, 386. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9110386

AMA Style

Seo J, Li W, Safiriyu I, Kharawala A, Nagraj S, Tahir A, Doundoulakis I, Koliastasis L, Rios S, Palaiodimos L, et al. A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of High BMI in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease. 2022; 9(11):386. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9110386

Chicago/Turabian Style

Seo, Jiyoung, Weijia Li, Israel Safiriyu, Amrin Kharawala, Sanjana Nagraj, Arooj Tahir, Ioannis Doundoulakis, Leonidas Koliastasis, Saul Rios, Leonidas Palaiodimos, and et al. 2022. "A Meta-Analysis on the Impact of High BMI in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement" Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease 9, no. 11: 386. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd9110386

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop