Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundWhile aortic valve replacement (AVR) is indicated for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), the appropriate management of asymptomatic severe AS remains unclear. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of surgical AVR (SAVR) versus conservative treatment in patients with asymptomatic severe AS. MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar for studies comparing outcomes of SAVR versus conservative treatment in asymptomatic severe AS. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each individual study. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality, 30-day operative mortality, sudden cardiac death (SCD), heart failure hospitalization (HFH), myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. ResultsA total of 8 studies with 2685 patients were included. The mean age was above 60 years, and the median follow-up duration was 4 years. Compared to conservative treatment, SAVR was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.23–0.64) and HFH rates (RR 0.18; 95% CI 0.05–0.71). There were no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.24; 95% CI 0.03–1.67), non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.23–1.03), 30-day operative mortality (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.10–2.32), SCD (RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.05–2.89), MI (RR 0.48; 95% CI 0.04–5.52), and stroke rates (RR 1.20; 95% CI 0.35–4.11) between the two strategies. ConclusionsIn patients with asymptomatic severe AS, SAVR is associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality and HFH compared to conservative treatment. While SAVR is a promising option for asymptomatic severe AS, most studies were observational and nonrandomized; randomized trials are needed to establish a clear benefit.