Why the study?
Long-term comparative data against SAVR in low-surgical-risk populations were limited, particularly regarding valve durability and the need for reintervention.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improve long-term clinical outcomes and valve durability compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Comparison
TAVR vs SAVR
Design
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Follow-up
Ranging from 3 to 10 years
Key result
TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86-1.42; P=0.43) and stroke in low-risk patients, though TAVR was associated with more pacemaker implantations.
Authors
Loading...
TAVR viable for low-risk AS; extends RCT durability data but leaves open reintervention rates.
Meta-Analysis (n=3,014)
Yes
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improve long-term clinical outcomes and valve durability compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis?
Hazard Ratio: 1.11 (95% CI 0.86–1.42)
p-value: p=0.43
In low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, TAVR and SAVR demonstrate equivalent long-term cardiovascular mortality and stroke rates, though TAVR is associated with higher, platform-dependent rates of permanent pacemaker implantation.
Ramamoorthy et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in severe aortic stenosis (n=3,014). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86-1.42, p=0.43). TAVR and SAVR resulted in similar cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.86-1.42; P=0.43) and stroke in low-risk patients, though TAVR was associated with more pacemaker implantations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: