Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials
Pooled resultResult — go to the resultHazard ratio 0.87 95% CI 0.76–0.99Authors' conclusion
Compared with SAVR, TAVI is associated with a significant survival benefit throughout 2 years of follow-up.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with severe aortic stenosis across the spectrum of risk (intermediate and high-risk)
- Participants
- 3,806 patients · 4 RCTs
- Comparison
- Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)
- TAVIn = 1,898
- SAVRn = 1,908reference
- Outcome
- All-cause death
- Follow-up
- 2 years
Methodological detailsrandom-effects
- Random-effects
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
0.87
95% CI 0.76–0.99
P = 0.038
TAVI vs SAVR
HR 0.87 (95% CI 0.76–0.99); P = 0.038
Further pooled results
| Outcome | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All-cause death, by access route (subgroup)TAVI vs SAVR · transfemoral access | 0.80 (0.69–0.93) | P = 0.004 | |
| All-cause death, by access route (subgroup)TAVI vs SAVR · transthoracic access | 1.17 (0.88–1.56) | P = 0.293 | |
| All-cause death, by sex (subgroup)TAVI vs SAVR · female | 0.68 (0.50–0.91) | P = 0.010 | |
| All-cause death, by sex (subgroup)TAVI vs SAVR · male | 0.99 (0.77–1.28) | P = 0.952 | |
| 0.512Hazard ratio (log scale) |
- All-cause death, by access route (subgroup): Pinteraction = 0.024
- All-cause death, by sex (subgroup): Pinteraction = 0.050
Kidney injury, new-onset AF, major bleeding
- Favoured TAVI
Original publication
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement for treatment of severe aortic stenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. Published 7 July 2016. doi:10.
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it