Why the study?
The 2025 ESC/EACTS guidelines recommend transfemoral TAVI in selected patients aged 70 years or older with tricuspid aortic stenosis and SAVR in younger low-risk patients, requiring careful consideration of valve durability, future reintervention, and patient preferences in those with long expected survival.
Does transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improve lifetime outcomes (including valve durability, reintervention, and late mortality) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis?
Does transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improve lifetime outcomes (including valve durability, reintervention, and late mortality) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients with aortic stenosis?
This expert review emphasizes that while transfemoral TAVI is appropriate for patients with limited life expectancy or high surgical risk, SAVR should retain a central role in low-risk patients with long expected survival due to time-dependent treatment effects, limited randomized durability data, and the complexity of future reinterventions.
Supports surgical replacement for long life expectancy; confirms 2025 guidelines while underscoring limited long-term TAVI durability data.
The 2025 European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Guidelines introduced a Class I recommendation for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in selected patients aged 70 years or older with tricuspid aortic stenosis and suitable anatomy, while surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains recommended in younger low-risk patients. In patients with long expected survival, this framework requires careful consideration of valve durability, future reintervention, and patient preferences. This expert review, developed by the Italian Cardiac Surgery Working Group, examines contemporary evidence and consensus recommendations from a lifetime-management perspective. We performed a narrative, evidence-based synthesis of randomized trials, trial-based meta-analyses, and propensity-matched real-world registries comparing transfemoral TAVI and SAVR, with primary emphasis on low-risk patients. Lower-intermediate-risk evidence was included only when directly relevant to lifetime management, durability, or reintervention. Evidence suggests that treatment effects are time-dependent: early non-inferiority of TAVI may attenuate with longer follow-up, particularly in patients with substantial life expectancy. Randomized durability data remain limited, whereas propensity-matched real-world registries have suggested possible higher late mortality after TAVI in younger, lower-risk populations. Reintervention after a transcatheter-first strategy may be associated with increasing technical complexity and procedural risk over time. This review supports appropriate application of current guidelines through a pragmatic framework for individualized, Heart Team-based decision-making. Transfemoral TAVI is often appropriate in patients with limited life expectancy or recognized high surgical risk when anatomically feasible. In patients with long expected survival, SAVR should retain a central role as an important reference strategy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Centofanti et al. (2026) conducted a review in Aortic stenosis. Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: