• Ashok Kondur, Alexandros Briasoulis, Mohan Palla, Anirudh Penumetcha, Sagar Mallikethi-Reddy, Apurva Badheka, and Theodore Schreiber.
• Department of Cardiology, Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan.
• Am. J. Cardiol. 2016 Jan 15; 117 (2): 252-7.

AbstractTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a viable option in the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients at high risk for surgery. We sought to further investigate outcomes in patients at low to intermediate risk with aortic stenosis who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus TAVR. We systematically searched the electronic databases, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for prospective cohort studies of the effects of TAVR versus SAVR on clinical outcomes (30-day mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke and myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, paravalvular regurgitation, permanent pacemaker implantation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury). We identified 5 clinical studies, examining 1,618 patients in the TAVR group and 1,581 patients in the SAVR group with an average follow-up of 1.05 years. No difference in all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction between the 2 approaches was found. TAVR was associated with higher rates of vascular complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, and moderate or severe paravalvular regurgitation (p <0.001 for all), whereas more major bleeding events were seen in the SAVR group (p <0.001). In conclusion, TAVR was found to have similar survival and stroke rates and lower major bleeding rates as compared with SAVR in patients at low or intermediate surgical risk. However, SAVR was associated with less pacemaker placements and paravalvular regurgitation rates.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

9 keywords...

hide…