Why the study?
Surgery is still preferred in younger and healthier patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, although recent trials support comparable efficacy and safety of TAVR even in low-risk patients.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement reduce stroke compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in low- and intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis?
Population
Low- and intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis
Comparison
TAVR vs SAVR
Design
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Follow-up
Longest available follow-up, including 5-year follow-up
Key result
TAVR was associated with a similar risk of stroke (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.81-1.35) and mortality compared to SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.
Authors
Loading...
Supports TAVR as alternative in low-risk aortic stenosis; extends recent trial evidence for comparable outcomes.
Meta-Analysis
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement reduce stroke compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in low- and intermediate-risk patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis?
Relative Risk: 1.05 (95% CI 0.81–1.35)
TAVR demonstrates comparable long-term clinical safety and efficacy to SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, though it is associated with higher rates of pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak.
Saleem et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Stroke (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81, 1.35). TAVR was associated with a similar risk of stroke (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.81-1.35) and mortality compared to SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.