Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine (Sep 2023)

Comparison of middle-term valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

  • Tsahi T. Lerman,
  • Tsahi T. Lerman,
  • Tsahi T. Lerman,
  • Amos Levi,
  • Amos Levi,
  • Troels Højsgaard Jørgensen,
  • Lars Søndergaard,
  • Yeela Talmor-Barkan,
  • Yeela Talmor-Barkan,
  • Ran Kornowski,
  • Ran Kornowski

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1242608
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 10

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundThis study aims to compare valve durability between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was structural valve deterioration (SVD). Secondary outcomes were bioprosthetic valve failure, reintervention, effective orifice area (EOA), mean pressure gradient, and moderate–severe aortic regurgitation (AR, transvalvular and/or paravalvular).ResultsTwenty-five publications from seven RCTs consisting of 7,970 patients were included in the analysis with follow-up ranges of 2–8 years. No significant difference was found between the two groups with regard to SVD [odds ratio (OR) 0.72; 95% CI: 0.25–2.12]. The TAVI group was reported to exhibit a statistically significant higher risk of reintervention (OR 2.03; 95% CI: 1.34–3.05) and a moderate–severe AR (OR 6.54; 95% CI: 3.92–10.91) compared with the SAVR group. A trend toward lower mean pressure gradient in the TAVI group [(mean difference (MD) −1.61; 95% CI: −3.5 to 0.28)] and significant higher EOA (MD 0.20; 95% CI: 0.08–0.31) was noted.ConclusionThe present data indicate that TAVI provides a comparable risk of SVD with favorable hemodynamic profile compared with SAVR. However, the higher risk of significant AR and reintervention was demonstrated.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO (CRD42022363060).

Keywords