Key result
TAVR showed no significant difference compared to SAVR in early mortality (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.9-1.39; P=0.355) or late mortality among patients of moderate or high surgical risk.
Why the study?
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement improve major adverse outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in moderate and high-risk patients?
Population
20,224 patients with moderate or high surgical risk requiring aortic valve replacement
Comparison
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)
Design
Meta-analysis
Authors
Loading...
Supports individualized TAVR or SAVR selection in moderate/high-risk patients; confirms mortality equivalence from prior RCTs.
Meta-Analysis (n=20,224)
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement improve major adverse outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in moderate and high-risk patients?
Odds Ratio: 1.11 (95% CI 0.9–1.39)
p-value: p=0.355
TAVR and SAVR offer similar short and long-term mortality and stroke risks in moderate to high-risk patients, with TAVR reducing bleeding and acute kidney injury but increasing pacemaker need and vascular complications.
Carnero et al. (2016) conducted a meta-analysis in Moderate or high surgical risk requiring aortic valve replacement (n=20,224). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Early mortality (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.9-1.39, p=0.355). TAVR showed no significant difference compared to SAVR in early mortality (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.9-1.39; P=0.355) or late mortality among patients of moderate or high surgical risk.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: