Why the study?
To compare the safety and efficacy of TAVR versus SAVR in low-risk severe aortic stenosis, and to evaluate the differential impact of balloon-expandable and self-expanding valve platforms.
Does TAVR improve clinical outcomes compared to SAVR in low-risk adults with severe aortic stenosis?
Meta-Analysis (n=37,741)
Does TAVR improve clinical outcomes compared to SAVR in low-risk adults with severe aortic stenosis?
In low-risk severe aortic stenosis, TAVR provides comparable short- to intermediate-term survival and better procedural safety than SAVR, but long-term outcomes may depend on the specific valve platform.
Supports individualized BE/SE valve selection in low-risk AS; extends network evidence across short- and mid-term horizons.
Purpose To compare the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk severe aortic stenosis, and to assess the differential impact of balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) valve platforms on clinical outcomes. Methods A systematic search across seven databases was performed through May 2024. Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted across three pre-specified time horizons: 30 days, 1 to 2 years, and 3 or more years. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Egger's regression testing and randomized controlled trial (RCT)-only sensitivity analyses were performed. Results Thirty-one studies (37,741 patients) were included. All TAVR types demonstrated comparable short-term and intermediate-term mortality to SAVR, with TAVR-BE ranking most favourably by Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) (81.2% and 87.7%); these rankings should be interpreted alongside the non-significant effect estimates. In exploratory ≥3-year analyses (k=10 studies, consistent with RCT-only sensitivity analyses), TAVR-Mixed showed significantly higher mortality than SAVR (OR 1.963 [95% CI 1.620 to 2.378]; p<0.001), while TAVR-BE and TAVR-SE showed no significant difference. TAVR-BE significantly reduced 30-day rehospitalization (OR 0.625; p=0.007), stroke (OR 0.534; p=0.001), atrial fibrillation, acute kidney injury, and major bleeding versus SAVR. All TAVR platforms shortened hospital stay by approximately 4 days. SAVR was associated with significantly lower rates of paravalvular regurgitation and permanent pacemaker implantation at all time horizons. Conclusion In low-risk severe aortic stenosis, TAVR, particularly with balloon-expandable valves, appears to offer comparable short-term and intermediate-term survival with superior procedural safety versus SAVR. In exploratory ≥3-year analyses, SAVR was associated with lower mortality specifically within the heterogeneous TAVR-Mixed cohort; TAVR-BE and TAVR-SE showed no significant mortality difference from SAVR at this horizon, underscoring the importance of platform-specific and individualised decision-making.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kizzandy et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in low-risk severe aortic stenosis (n=37,741). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on mortality at ≥3 years (TAVR-Mixed vs SAVR) (OR 1.963, 95% CI 1.620 to 2.378, p=<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: