Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a promising strategy for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis. We aimed to compare TAVR with surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR) and determine the performance of TAVR over time and within several subgroups. We included 8 randomized trials comparing TAVR versus SAVR. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30-day (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; p = 0.004), 1-year (OR, 0.83; p = 0.01), and 2-year (OR, 0.86; p = 0.02), but not at long-term follow-up (rate ratio [RR], 1.02 [confidence interval 0.92 to 1.13]; p = 0.67). Notably, 5-year data showed numerically higher incidence in TAVR (RR, 1.11 [confidence interval 0.97 to 1.27]; p = 0.12). The risks associated with TAVR versus SAVR increased over time, showing a significant interaction (p for interaction = 0.01), as were for new-onset atrial fibrillation and rehospitalization. Incidences of major bleeding, new-onset fibrillation, and acute kidney injury were lower in TAVR, whereas transient ischemic attack, major vascular complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, reintervention, and paravalvular leak were lower in SAVR. Incidences for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were not statistically different. TAVR with transfemoral approach and new-generation valve was associated with reduction in all-cause mortality or disabling stroke compared with corresponding comparators. In conclusion, TAVR was associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality or disabling stroke within 2 years, but not at long-term follow-up compared with SAVR; the risks seems to increase over time. More data are needed to determine longer-term performance of TAVR.
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.