Low-Risk Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement - An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives: To perform a meta-analysis including all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to date comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and low surgical risk. Background: Current guidelines recommend SAVR for patients with severe symptomatic AS and low surgical risk. A few RCTs have evaluated TAVR in low surgical risk patients but equipoise exists related to TAVR valve durability, paravalvular leak (PVL) and role of TAVR in younger, low surgical risk patients. Methods: Five databases were analyzed from January-2000 to March-2019 for RCTs comparing SAVR to TAVR in low-risk severe AS patients. Results: Four RCTs on low-risk TAVR patients with 2887 patients were included. Mean follow-up was similar to 24.1 +/- 24 months. Early mortality was lower with TAVR compared to SAVR (RR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.20-0.95, P = 0.038) whereas long-term mortality was similar (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.39-1.14, P = 0.141). Both early and long-term stroke rates were similar. TAVR was associated with lower risk of atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI) and rehospitalization, but higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPM) and moderate or severe PVL. There was no difference in major vascular complications, myocardial infarction, endocarditis, aortic valve gradients and valve area at follow-up. Conclusions: In low-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR has a lower early mortality compared to SAVR with no difference in long-term mortality. Although complication rates varied between TAVR and SAVR, our study findings suggest that transfemoral-TAVR is an appropriate treatment option for severe symptomatic AS in patients with low surgical risk. (c) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.