Meta-analysis reveals benefits of early intervention in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, suggesting improved outcomes despite no significant mortality reduction.
Whilst aortic stenosis remains the most prevalent valvular abnormality, the management of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis remains a clinical challenge. Recently, two randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) - EVOLVED (Early Intervention in Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis and Myocardial Fibrosis) and Early TAVR (Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement for Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) - have been published, alongside an extended follow-up from the AVATAR (Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Conservative Treatment in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis) study. In response, we conducted a systematic review of PubMed, Ovid, and Cochrane databases, identifying RCTs up to October 29, 2024, that compared early intervention with conventional management. Four studies met the inclusion criteria, with a combined total of 1427 patients across the trials. Meta-analysis of the primary endpoints across these studies demonstrated a benefit with early intervention (HR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.35-0.73). However, we did not find mortality and cardiac mortality to show significant reductions (HR=0.68, 95% CI: 0.40-1.18 and HR=0.66, 95% CI: 0.33-1.29, respectively). Crucially, stroke outcomes were improved with early intervention (HR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.38-0.95), as were unplanned hospitalizations (HR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30-0.53). These findings confirm the safety of early intervention and suggest a reduction in stroke incidence, although no significant benefits were observed in overall or cardiac mortality; results which can help to guide shared decision-making with patients and prevent adverse health outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johnson et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: