Abstract
For Aortic valve replacement (AVR), both transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) serve as a pivotal therapeutic approach for severe aortic stenosis (AS). While both modalities show advantages over conservative management, the long-term mortality benefits post AVR, especially when comparing TAVR with SAVR, remain uncertain. A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted through a systematic search of electronic databases up to December 7, 2023. Individual patient data extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots underwent pooling and modeling with stratification by surgical risk. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at five years. The study included 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 non-RCTs, encompassing 4,215 patients undergoing TAVR, 4,017 undergoing SAVR, and comparing 11,285 AVR patients with 23,358 receiving conservative management. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement exhibited significantly lower all-cause mortality at six months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% CI: 0.52-0.74) compared to SAVR, with no significant difference beyond 6 months (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.19). There were no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.83-1.16), stroke (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.75-1.38), or valvular hemodynamics between TAVR and SAVR. Aortic valve replacement markedly reduced all-cause mortality compared to medical therapy (P < 0.001), with five-year crude mortality rates of 31.6% versus 49.3% and a difference in restricted mean survival time of 8.9 months. Similar outcomes were observed across high, intermediate, and low surgical risk categories. While TAVR demonstrated early mortality reduction compared to SAVR, no distinctions emerged in the overall five-year follow-up, regardless of surgical risk. Aortic valve replacement notably improved survival over conservative therapy. This study advocates for the preference of TAVR or SAVR in severe AS patients when feasible.