Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreJournal ClubResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeJournal ClubExplore
October 21, 2019Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low‐surgical‐risk patients: An updated meta‐analysis

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

While TAVR is proven safe and effective in high- and intermediate-risk aortic stenosis, data on its safety and efficacy in low-surgical-risk patients remain limited.

Does transcatheter aortic-valve replacement improve clinical outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in low-surgical-risk patients?

Population

6,293 low-surgical-risk patients across seven studies

Comparison

TAVR vs SAVR

Design

Meta-analysis

Follow-up

1-year

Authors

SGSunny GoelRPRavi Teja PasamKWKaran Wats

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Supports TAVR as alternative to SAVR in low-risk patients; confirms comparable 1-year mortality and stroke with lower atrial fibrillation.

Structured PICO

Does transcatheter aortic-valve replacement improve clinical outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in low-surgical-risk patients?

P
Population
6,293 low-surgical-risk patients (mean STS score <4% and/or logistic EuroScore <10%) pooled from 7 studies
I
Intervention
Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR)
C
Comparator
Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)
O
Outcome
All-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and stroke rates at 1-year follow-uphard clinical

In low-surgical-risk patients, TAVR demonstrates similar 1-year mortality and stroke rates compared to SAVR, with less atrial fibrillation but potentially more paravalvular leak.

Cite This Study

Goel et al. (2019) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7e142fa05005b5f50f265ahttps://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.28520
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share