Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at low surgical risk: A meta-analysis of randomized trials and propensity score matched observational studies.

Abstract

Although transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is officially indicated for high risk aortic stenosis (AS) patients, the procedure is increasingly being performed in patients who are not at high surgical risk, including a substantial number of low risk patients. However, data on the benefit of TAVR in this patient population is limited. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with propensity score matching (PSM) of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients who are at low surgical risk. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes included stroke, myocardial infarction, bleeding, and various procedural complications. Six studies (2 RCTs and 4 PSM studies) totaling 3,484 patients were included. Follow-up ranged from 3 months to 3 years (median 2 years). The short-term mortality was similar with either TAVR or SAVR (2.2% for TAVR and 2.6% for SAVR, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.56-1.41, P = 0.62), however, TAVR was associated with increased risk for intermediate-term mortality (17.2% for TAVR and 12.7% for SAVR, RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11-1.89, P = 0.006). In terms of periprocedural complications, TAVR was associated with reduced risk for bleeding and renal failure and an increase in vascular complications and Pacemaker implantation. In patients who are at low surgical risk, TAVR seems to be associated with increased mortality risk. Until more data in this population is available, SAVR should remain the treatment of choice for these patients.