• John E Connolly, Seyed Hossein Aalaei Andabili, Emily Joseph, Jon Resar, and Faisal Rahman.
• Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Md.
• Am. J. Med. 2024 Oct 1; 137 (10): 10081011.e11008-1011.e1.

BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is accepted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Prior studies have shown that TAVR has comparable or superior outcomes to SAVR in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, there is paucity of data about outcome of TAVR vs SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients evaluated at 4 or more years post-procedure.MethodsA systematic review of all published randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients was completed. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to study major outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic valve reintervention.ResultsThree randomized trials comprising 2644 patients (1371 TAVR and 1273 SAVR) with a mean age of 74.3 ± 5.8 years were included in this analysis. There was no significant difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or aortic valve reintervention between the TAVR and SAVR groups at long-term follow-up. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with higher rate of pacemaker implantation, whereas SAVR was associated with more atrial fibrillation.ConclusionsAt 4 or more years of follow-up, TAVR is safe and has comparable outcomes to SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. Possibility of TAVR and its risks and benefits should be discussed with low-surgical-risk patients.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

14 keywords...

hide…