Key result
TAVI showed an initial benefit over SAVR, but there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality or stroke at 5 years follow-up regardless of baseline risk profile.
Why the study?
Indications for TAVI have expanded, but long-term device efficacy remains unclear across different risk profiles.
Does TAVI reduce the composite of all-cause mortality or stroke compared to SAVR in patients requiring aortic valve replacement?
Meta-Analysis (n=9,811)
Does TAVI reduce the composite of all-cause mortality or stroke compared to SAVR in patients requiring aortic valve replacement?
While TAVI shows an early benefit over SAVR, there are no significant differences in the composite of death or stroke at 5 years follow-up regardless of baseline surgical risk.
Supports individualized TAVI or SAVR selection by anatomy and comorbidities; extends randomized evidence confirming equivalent 5-year outcomes across risk strata.
OBJECTIVE: Indications for TAVI have been widened, although long-term device efficacy is still unclear. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) on a composite of death from any cause or stroke at 5-year follow-up according to risk profiles. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature review for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI or SAVR. The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause mortality or stroke at follow-up. Hazard ratios (HRs) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) differences within high, intermediate and low-risk profiles were estimated by reconstructing time-to-event data from these Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Eight trials were included (9811 participants). The incidence of composite endpoint increased concordantly with higher baseline risk profiles for both treatments. A time-variant effect was present with transcatheter superior to surgery early, as supported by a cumulative additional time-to-event of 0.77 months at 4 years driven by the high-risk group that is attenuated at 60 months. The benefit of the transcatheter approach increased over time up to 5 years in high-risk patients (RMST difference = 2.39; 95 %CI = -0.23;5.02; p-value = 0.07), while the benefit of the transcatheter approach in intermediate and low-risk patients showed a quadratic association with a smaller increase and attenuation of the observed benefit after 60 months postintervention (low-risk = 0.86; 95 %CI = -0.11,1.84; p-value 0.09; intermediate = 0.45; 95 %CI = -0.66;1.56; p-value = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Although an initial benefit of TAVI over SAVR, there are no significant differences at 5 years follow-up independently from the risk profile.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barili et al. (2025) conducted a meta-analysis in Aortic valve disease (n=9,811). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality or stroke. TAVI showed an initial benefit over SAVR, but there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality or stroke at 5 years follow-up regardless of baseline risk profile.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: