Short- and intermediate-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) being currently employed in low surgical risk patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS). The durability and extended outcomes of TAVR as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients remains uncertain. MethodsWe selected randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in low surgical risk patients having severe AS using online databases. The primary outcome was all-cause death. The secondary outcomes were composite of all-cause death & disabling stroke, cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement, new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), valve re-intervention and valve thrombosis. The outcomes were stratified at short- (1-year) and intermediate-term (≤5 years) follow-up. We used a random effect model to report outcomes as relative risk (RR) with a 95 % confidence interval (CI). ResultsThe analysis consisted of six RCTs comprising 5,122 subjects with a mean age of 75.4 years. At short-term follow up, there was a significant reduction in all-cause death (RR: 0.62, 0.46–0.82, p = 0.001) and composite of all-cause death and disabling stroke (RR: 0.62, 0.45–0.83, p = 0.002) in patients undergoing TAVR. At intermediate-term follow-up, there was no significant difference in survival (RR:0.95, 0.73–1.24, p = 0.71) and composite outcome (RR: 0.95, 0.74–1.22, p = 0.71). TAVR patients had lower incidence of new onset AF, however, higher PPM placement. ConclusionIn patients with severe AS having low-surgical risk, patients undergoing TAVR had improved short-term survival as compared to SAVR. This survival advantage was absent at intermediate-term follow-up. The long-term outcomes remain uncertain.