Abstract
Aortic valve disease and cancer are significant causes of mortality, especially in older populations. This meta-analysis addresses a critical question in the management of patients with both aortic valve disease and cancer. As these two conditions are major contributors to mortality, determining the best course of treatment can be complex. Traditionally, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclude cancer patients, leaving a gap in clinical evidence. This study steps in to fill that gap by pooling data from over 120,000 patients in 15 cohort studies, following PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in cancer patients. The primary focus of the analysis was all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes including stroke, pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, and vascular complications. The results revealed no statistically significant differences between cancer and non-cancer groups in terms of mortality or complications. These findings suggest that TAVR can be a safe and effective option for patients with cancer, suggesting that deferring cardiovascular interventions in favor of cancer treatment may not always be necessary. However, the observational nature of the included studies does introduce potential biases, such as confounding factors and selection bias. The study highlights the need for more targeted research that focuses on specific types and stages of cancer to better understand how these factors may influence outcomes. Despite these limitations, the meta-analysis provides valuable insights and suggests that TAVR could be a viable treatment path for patients managing both cancer and aortic valve disease.