Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Lower Surgical Risk Scores: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Early Outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The results from the PARTNER 2 trial showed the feasibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in intermediate surgical risk patients. Although low risk clinical trials will take time to conclude, some data has emerged comparing TAVR with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in lower risk patients.

METHODS

A Medline search was conducted using standard methodology to search for studies reporting results comparing TAVR and SAVR. Studies were included if the overall mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Score was less than 4% (or equivalent Euroscore). A meta-analysis comparing the 30-day risk of clinical outcomes between TAVR and SAVR in the lower surgical risk population was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of four studies, including one clinical trial and three propensity-matched cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared to SAVR, TAVR had a lower risk of 30-day mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41, 1.10), stroke (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30, 1.22), bleeding complications (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.40, 0.67) and acute kidney injury (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47, 0.94). However, a higher risk of vascular complications (RR 11.72, 95% CI 3.75, 36.64), moderate or severe paravalvular leak (RR 5.04, 95% CI 3.01, 8.43), and permanent pacemaker implantations (RR 4.62, 95% CI 2.63, 8.12) was noted for TAVR.

CONCLUSION

Among lower risk patients, TAVR and SAVR appear to be comparable in short term outcomes. Additional high quality studies among patients classified as low risk are needed to further explore the feasibility of TAVR in all surgical risk patients.