Why the study?
Although TAVR is established in low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis, the durability of its clinical benefits and hemodynamic profile across valve platforms remained uncertain.
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improve clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with low-surgical-risk severe aortic stenosis?
Meta-Analysis (n=5,750)
Open-label
Randomized controlled trials
Yes
Does transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improve clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with low-surgical-risk severe aortic stenosis?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In low-surgical-risk severe aortic stenosis, TAVR provides an early 1-year survival advantage and conclusive reductions in major bleeding and new-onset atrial fibrillation compared to SAVR, but long-term mortality and stroke outcomes converge and TAVR carries higher rates of permanent pacemaker implantation and moderate-or-greater paravalvular leak.
Background TAVR is established in low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis, but the durability of its clinical benefits and hemodynamic profile across valve platforms remain uncertain. Methods PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for randomized trials comparing TAVR with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients. Random-effects meta-analysis assessed clinical outcomes at 30 days, 1 year, and extended follow-up and echocardiographic outcomes at 30 days and 1 year, stratified by prosthesis type. Reconstructed individual patient data were analyzed for time-to-event endpoints, with trial sequential and sensitivity analyses. Results Seven RCTs (n = 5,750; 2,927 TAVR, 2,823 SAVR) were included. At 1 year, TAVR reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; p = 0.0096), but not at extended follow-up (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.39; p = 0.65). Reconstructed IPD showed no significant hazard differences for mortality (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.21; p = 0.70), stroke (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; p = 0.85), or death/disabling stroke (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.19; p = 0.91). RMST showed small 1-year advantages for mortality (0.1 months; p = 0.003) and death/disabling stroke (0.2 months; p < 0.001), neither sustained at extended follow-up. Major bleeding was lower with TAVR at 30 days, 1 year, and extended follow-up (RR 0.30, 0.32, and 0.32, respectively; all p ≤ 0.0004) and was the only outcome with conclusive trial sequential evidence. New-onset AF was lower with TAVR at 30 days (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.36; p = 0.0012), 1 year (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.42; p = 0.0018), and extended follow-up (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.66; p = 0.0093), whereas pacemaker implantation was higher with TAVR at 30 days (RR 2.40, 95% CI 1.79–3.22; p = 0.0052), 1 year (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.30–4.35; p = 0.0126), and extended follow-up (RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.57–2.64; p = 0.0005). Stroke, myocardial infarction, and valve reintervention did not differ significantly. Self-expanding valves had lower gradients with TAVR (− 2.10 mmHg), whereas balloon-expandable valves had higher gradients (+ 2.08 mmHg at 30 days; subgroup p < 0.0001). Conclusions TAVR provides a modest, transient mortality benefit with less bleeding but greater pacemaker use; long-term outcomes remain comparable, and major bleeding was the only outcome with conclusive trial sequential evidence.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ebeid et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk (n=5,750). Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on All-cause mortality at 1 year (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84, p=0.0096).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: