Key result
TAVR is linked to significantly lower overall survival compared to SAVR.
Why the study?
The impact of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced ejection fraction was not well defined.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) improve outcomes and survival in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced ejection fraction?
Observational (n=1,164)
No
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) improve outcomes and survival in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced ejection fraction?
p-value: p=0.016
In a propensity-matched observational study of patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced ejection fraction, SAVR was associated with better survival and lower 1-year mean pressure gradients compared to TAVR, highlighting a need for randomized trials in this population.
SAVR was associated with better mid-term survival than TAVR; leaves open whether randomized trials would confirm a true benefit in reduced-EF aortic stenosis.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and reduced ejection fraction (EF). DESIGN: A propensity-matched, retrospective study of consecutive aortic valve interventions from 2010 to 2023. SETTING: A single institution. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with severe AS and reduced EF (<50%) undergoing aortic valve intervention. INTERVENTIONS: The cohort was dichotomized by SAVR versus TAVR. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 1,164 patients underwent an aortic valve intervention for severe AS with reduced EF (<50%), of which 240 (20.6%) had an isolated SAVR and 924 (79.4%) underwent a TAVR. Propensity matching yielded 205 pairs. The 30-day mortality and stroke rates were no different across groups. Paravalvular leak was significantly higher in the TAVR group, and there was a statistically nonsignificant trend toward more pacemakers in the TAVR group (p = 0.093). At 1 year, EF was similar between groups: 48% (IQR: 41-53) in the SAVR group versus 53% (IQR: 37-58) in the TAVR group (p = 0.431). Conversely, at 1 year, mean pressure gradients were higher in the TAVR group (10 [7-15] mmHg v 8 [7-10] mmHg, p = 0.040). The cumulative incidence of heart failure readmissions was higher in the TAVR group, although it was a statistically nonsignificant trend (p = 0.066). The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention was similar across groups (p = 0.564). Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were significantly lower in the TAVR group (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: While surgery may optimize survival after aortic valve replacement in patients with reduced EF, these observational findings need to be verified by prospective randomized controlled comparisons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Brown et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis with reduced ejection fraction (n=1,164). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Kaplan-Meier survival (p=0.016). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with significantly lower Kaplan-Meier survival estimates compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (P=0.016).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: