TY - JOUR
T1 - Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Four or More Years
AU - Connolly, John E.
AU - Andabili, Seyed Hossein Aalaei
AU - Joseph, Emily
AU - Resar, Jon
AU - Rahman, Faisal
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is accepted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Prior studies have shown that TAVR has comparable or superior outcomes to SAVR in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, there is paucity of data about outcome of TAVR vs SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients evaluated at 4 or more years post-procedure. Methods: A systematic review of all published randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients was completed. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to study major outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic valve reintervention. Results: Three randomized trials comprising 2644 patients (1371 TAVR and 1273 SAVR) with a mean age of 74.3 ± 5.8 years were included in this analysis. There was no significant difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or aortic valve reintervention between the TAVR and SAVR groups at long-term follow-up. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with higher rate of pacemaker implantation, whereas SAVR was associated with more atrial fibrillation. Conclusions: At 4 or more years of follow-up, TAVR is safe and has comparable outcomes to SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. Possibility of TAVR and its risks and benefits should be discussed with low-surgical-risk patients.
AB - Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is accepted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis. Prior studies have shown that TAVR has comparable or superior outcomes to SAVR in intermediate and high-risk patients. However, there is paucity of data about outcome of TAVR vs SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients evaluated at 4 or more years post-procedure. Methods: A systematic review of all published randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR and SAVR in low-risk patients was completed. A random-effects model meta-analysis was performed to study major outcomes, including all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and aortic valve reintervention. Results: Three randomized trials comprising 2644 patients (1371 TAVR and 1273 SAVR) with a mean age of 74.3 ± 5.8 years were included in this analysis. There was no significant difference in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, or aortic valve reintervention between the TAVR and SAVR groups at long-term follow-up. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement was associated with higher rate of pacemaker implantation, whereas SAVR was associated with more atrial fibrillation. Conclusions: At 4 or more years of follow-up, TAVR is safe and has comparable outcomes to SAVR in low-surgical-risk patients. Possibility of TAVR and its risks and benefits should be discussed with low-surgical-risk patients.
KW - Aortic stenosis
KW - Low-risk
KW - Surgical aortic valve replacement
KW - Transcatheter aortic valve replacement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85199154990&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85199154990&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2024.05.031
DO - 10.1016/j.amjmed.2024.05.031
M3 - Article
C2 - 38876333
AN - SCOPUS:85199154990
SN - 0002-9343
JO - American Journal of Medicine
JF - American Journal of Medicine
ER -