Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a treatment option for severe aortic stenosis in patients at intermediate or high surgical risk. However, until recently there was insufficient evidence regarding the outcomes of TAVR compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients at low risk. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review of all randomized trials comparing the efficacy and safety of TAVR versus SAVR in patients at low surgical risk. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, using fixed- or random-effects model. Results Four trials were eligible for analysis and comprised a total of 2887 patients (1497 allocated to TAVR and 1390 allocated to SAVR group). TAVR was associated with a 39% relative risk reduction (RRR) of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (absolute risk reduction ARR of 3.7%; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.47-0.79); 39% RRR of overall mortality (ARR of 1.4%; RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.96) and 45% RRR of cardiovascular mortality (ARR of 1.3%; RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.33-0.90), 69% RRR of life threatening or disabling bleeding (ARR of 7.0%; RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.22-0.44), 73% RRR of new-onset atrial fibrillation (ARR of 29%; RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.20-0.35) and 73% RRR of acute kidney injury (ARR of 2.1%; RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14-0.56) as compared with SAVR. In contrast, TAVR was associated with a 4.7-fold increased risk of new pacemaker (PM) implantation (RR 4.72; 95% CI 1.83-12.15), which was driven by use of self-expanding valves. Conclusion TAVR in low-risk patients is superior to SAVR for the majority of outcomes. [GRAPHICS] .