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

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a valid option for patients with high or intermediate surgical risk. However, clinical outcomes of TAVR in low-risk patients are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-surgical-risk patients.

METHODS

Electronic database review was conducted for all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk patients. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

We included 3 RCTs totaling 604 patients (310 TAVR and 294 SAVR). Our results showed no significant difference in mortality between TAVR compared with SAVR (RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.22-2.30; P = 0.56), however, there was a significantly increased risk of pacemaker implantation (RR = 7.28; 95% CI = 3.94-13.42; P < 0.01) and moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL) (RR = 6.74; 95% CI = 1.31-34.65; P = 0.02) with TAVR. Nevertheless, TAVR demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of post-procedural bleeding (RR = 0.40; 95% CI = 0.30-0.54; P < 0.01) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (RR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.27-0.47; P < 0.01). Other clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the groups and included cardiovascular mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, and myocardial infarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-risk patients, TAVR offered comparable efficacy outcomes and fewer bleeding events compared with SAVR. There were increased risks of pacemaker implantation and PVL associated with TAVR, though lower atrial fibrillation risks.