Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Intermediate Risk Patients: A Meta-analysis

Abstract

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as the treatment of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk; the role of TAVR compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in the low-intermediate surgical risk population remains uncertain. Our primary objective was to determine differences in 30-day and late mortality in patients treated with TAVR compared with SAVR at low-intermediate risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality < 10%). MethodsMedline and Embase were searched from 2010 to March 2017 for studies that compared TAVR with SAVR in the low-intermediate surgical risk population, restricted to randomized clinical trials and matched observational studies. Two investigators independently abstracted the data and a random effects meta-analysis was performed. ResultsFour randomized clinical trials (n = 4042) and 9 propensity score-matched observational studies (n = 4192) were included in the meta-analysis (n = 8234). There was no difference in 30-day mortality between TAVR and SAVR (3.2% vs 3.1%, pooled risk ratio: 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.30; P = 0.89; I2 = 0%) or mortality at a median of 1.5-year follow-up (incident rate ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.15; P = 0.83; I2 = 0%). There was a higher risk of pacemaker implantation and greater than trace aortic insufficiency in the TAVR group whereas the risk of early stroke, atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, cardiogenic shock, and major bleeding was higher in the SAVR group. ConclusionsAlthough there was no difference in 30-day and late mortality, the rate of complications differed between TAVR and SAVR in the low-intermediate surgical risk population.