• Kuljit Singh, Kristin Carson, Mohammed K Rashid, Rohan Jayasinghe, Abdulrahman AlQahtani, Alexander Dick, Christopher Glover, and Marino Labinaz.
• Griffith University, Brisbane, Qld, Australia; Gold Coast University Hospital, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. Electronic address: kjaulakh@gmail.com.
• Heart Lung Circ. 2018 Feb 1; 27 (2): 227-234.

BackgroundRecent data from randomised and observational studies have reported non-inferior outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-risk patients. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the mortality of TAVI compared to SAVR in intermediate-risk patients.MethodsA comprehensive search of four major databases (Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar) was performed from their inception to 29 April 2016. We included original research studies reporting data on TAVI and SAVR in intermediate-risk patients. We compared the outcomes of TAVI to SAVR.ResultsA total of 2,375 and 2,377 intermediate-risk patients underwent TAVI and SAVR respectively. The 30-day all-cause (p=0.07), 30-day cardiac (p=0.53), and 12-month all-cause mortality (p=0.34) was similar between the two groups. However, TAVI through transfemoral access had a significantly lower mortality than SAVR (OR 0.58, p=0.006). The incidence of ≥moderate aortic incompetence (p<0.00001) and pacemaker implantation (p<0.0001) was higher in the TAVI group.ConclusionsIn the intermediate-risk patients, the 30-day and 12-month mortality are similar between TAVI and SAVR. Increased operator experience and improved device technology have led to a significant reduction in mortality in intermediate-risk patients undergoing TAVI.Copyright © 2017 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…