In patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis, TAVR was associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.51-3.47; P<0.01) and lower bleeding rates compared to SAVR.
Meta-Analysis (n=78,677)
Does TAVR improve safety and efficacy outcomes compared to SAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis?
In patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis, TAVR reduces bleeding and hospital length of stay compared to SAVR, but is associated with an increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation, paravalvular leak, and potentially long-term stroke.
Odds Ratio: 2.29 (95% CI 1.51–3.47)
p-value: p=< 0.01
Background Bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) disease is a leading cause of aortic stenosis (AS). Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has traditionally been regarded as the best therapeutic option for bicuspid AS. However, the distinctive anatomical characteristics of BAV make the treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) challenging, so this population was often excluded from the trials. We aimed to compare TAVR and SAVR in terms of safety and efficacy in the population with bicuspid AS. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, searched from PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science (from inception until September 2025). Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs), each with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results A total of 78,677 patients were included in one RCT, 12 retrospective cohort studies, and one prospective cohort study. TAVR, compared to SAVR, was associated with significantly higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (O.R. = 2.29, 95% C.I. 1.51, 3.47, P < 0.01) and shorter length of hospital stay (M.D. = −2.24, 95% C.I. -3.96, −0.52, P = 0.01) and lower bleeding rates (O.R. = 0.31, 95% C.I. 0.14, 0.69, P < 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (ACM) ( P = 0.948 ), acute kidney injury (AKI) (P = 0.28) , stroke incidence ( P = 0.475 ), and vascular complications (P = 0.31). The PPI and stroke rate results were consistent during in-hospital and short-term follow-ups. However, subgroup analysis by follow-up duration revealed that long-term stroke incidence was significantly higher in the TAVI group. Conclusion TAVR offers benefit by minimizing significant bleeding and hospital length of stay. However, the benefits should be balanced against the considerably increased risk of PPI and PVL. Further RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.
Gadelmawla et al. (Wed,) conducted a meta-analysis in Bicuspid aortic stenosis (n=78,677). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.51, 3.47, p=< 0.01). In patients with bicuspid aortic stenosis, TAVR was associated with higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.51-3.47; P<0.01) and lower bleeding rates compared to SAVR.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: