In this meta-analysis the collective safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was compared.
Four eligible trials including 3806 participants were included. For the primary outcome of death from any cause, TAVI when compared with SAVR was associated with a significant 13% relative risk reduction [hazard ratio (95% CI): 0.87 (0.76–0.99); P = 0.038]. Secondary outcomes of kidney injury, new-onset atrial fibrillation, and major bleeding favoured TAVI, while major vascular complications, incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation, and paravalvular regurgitation favoured SAVR.
Conclusion Compared with SAVR, TAVI is associated with a significant survival benefit throughout 2 years of follow-up. Importantly, this superiority is observed irrespective of the TAVI device across the spectrum of intermediate and high-risk patients.