• Reed A Siemieniuk, Thomas Agoritsas, Veena Manja, Tahira Devji, Yaping Chang, Malgorzata M Bala, Lehana Thabane, and Gordon H Guyatt.
• Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main St West, Hamilton, ON, Canada L8S 4L8 Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada reed.siemieniuk@medportal.ca.
• BMJ. 2016 Sep 28; 354: i5130.

Objective To examine the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk of perioperative death.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis DATA SOURCES:  Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL.Study Selection Randomized trials of TAVI compared with SAVR in patients with a mean perioperative risk of death <8%.Review Methods Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for outcomes important to patients that were selected a priori by a parallel guideline committee, including patient advisors. We used the GRADE system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence.Results 4 trials with 3179 patients and a median follow-up of two years were included. Compared with SAVR, transfemoral TAVI was associated with reduced mortality (risk difference per 1000 patients: -30, 95% confidence interval -49 to -8, moderate certainty), stroke (-20, -37 to 1, moderate certainty), life threatening bleeding (-252, -293 to -190, high certainty), atrial fibrillation (-178, -150 to -203, moderate certainty), and acute kidney injury (-53, -39 to -62, high certainty) but increased short term aortic valve reintervention (7, 1 to 21, moderate certainty), permanent pacemaker insertion (134, 16 to 382, moderate certainty), and moderate or severe symptoms of heart failure (18, 5 to 34, moderate certainty). Compared with SAVR, transapical TAVI was associated higher mortality (57, -16 to 153, moderate certainty, P=0.015 for interaction between transfemoral versus transapical TAVI) and stroke (45, -2 to 125, moderate certainty, interaction P=0.012). No study reported long term follow-up, which is particularly important for structural valve deterioration.Conclusions Many patients, particularly those who have a shorter life expectancy or place a lower value on the risk of long term valve degeneration, are likely to perceive net benefit with transfemoral TAVI versus SAVR. SAVR, however, performs better than transapical TAVI, which is of interest to patients who are not candidates for transfemoral TAVI.Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD42016042879.Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

6 keywords...

hide…