Comparison of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with aortic stenosis at low-intermediate risk.

Khan MR, Kayani WT, Manan M, Munir A, Hamzeh I, Virani SS, Birnbaum Y, Jneid H, Alam M. Comparison of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement for patients with aortic stenosis at low-intermediate risk. Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy. 2020 Apr 1; 10(2):135-144.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

Background: To compare safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at low-intermediate risk, given the paucity of robust data. Methods: We performed an aggregate data meta-analysis of 7 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 6,778 patients comparing TAVR with SAVR for aortic stenosis (AS) in low-intermediate risk patients (Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk-score = 8%) using the random-effects model. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30-day, 1-year and 2-year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included cardiac-mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), atrial fibrillation (AF), permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, major-bleeding, moderate-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) and rehospitalization. Results: All-cause mortality, cardiac-mortality and stroke were comparable between the two groups. AF was higher with SAVR at 30-day [odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.12-0.24] thorough to 2-year (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.55), while PPM implantation was higher with TAVR (30-day: OR 3.31, 95% CI: 1.64-6.66, 2-year: OR 3.17, 95% CI: 1.02-9.86). Moderate-severe PVR was more prevalent with TAVR at all follow-ups. On inter-group comparison, patients in the low-risk group had an even lower risk of AF, but a higher risk of PPM implantation as compared to the patients in the intermediate-risk group undergoing TAVR. Conclusions: Compared to SAVR, TAVR had comparable all-cause mortality and stroke, lower-risk of AF, but was associated with a higher risk of PPM implantation and moderate-severe PVR in low-intermediate-risk patients. Thus, highlighting the need for longer-term follow-up before robust inferences are drawn.