Abstract:Objectives: Patients undergoing surgery for severe aortic stenosis (SAS) can be treated with either transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The choice of procedure depends on several factors, including the clinical judgement of the heart team and patient preferences, which are captured by actively informing and involving patients in a process of shared decision making (SDM). We synthesised the most up-to-date and accessible evidence on the benefits and risks that may be associated with TAVI versus SAVR to support SDM in this highly personalised decision-making process. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Wiley) were searched from January 2000 to August 2020 with no language restrictions. Reference lists of included studies were searched to identify additional studies. Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared TAVI versus SAVR in patients with SAS and reported on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality, length of stay in intensive care unit or hospital, valve durability, rehospitalisation/reintervention, stroke (any stroke or major/disabling stroke), myocardial infarction, major vascular complications, major bleeding, permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, new-onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (NOW-AF), endocarditis, acute kidney injury (AKI), recovery time or pain were included. Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers were involved in data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane tool (one reviewer extracted/assessed the data, and the second reviewer checked it). Dichotomous data were pooled using the Mantel-Haenszel method with random-effects to generate a risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI. Continuous data were pooled using the inverse-variance method with random-effects and expressed as a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results: 8969 records were retrieved and nine RCTs (61 records) were ultimately included (n=8818 participants). Two RCTs recruited high-risk patients, two RCTs recruited intermediate-risk patients, two RCTs recruited low-risk patients, one RCT recruited high-risk (≥70 years) or any-risk (≥80 years) patients; and two RCTs recruited all-risk or 'operable' patients. While there was no overall change in the risk of dying from any cause (30 day: RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; 5 years: RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.22), cardiovascular mortality (30 day: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.39; ≤1 year: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06; 2 years: RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.12), or any type of stroke (30 day: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.14;≤1 year: RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.23; 5 years: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.30), the risk of several clinical outcomes was significantly decreased (major bleeding, AKI, NOW-AF) or significantly increased (major vascular complications, PPM implantation) for TAVI vs SAVR. TAVI was associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay vs SAVR (MD -3.08 days, 95% CI -4.86 to -1.29; 4 RCTs, n=2758 participants). Subgroup analysis generally favoured TAVI patients receiving implantation via the transfemoral (TF) route (vs non-TF); receiving a balloon-expandable (vs self-expanding) valve; and those at low-intermediate risk (vs high risk). All RCTs were rated at high ROB, predominantly due to lack of blinding and selective reporting. Conclusions: No overall change in the risk of death from any cause or cardiovascular mortality was identified but 95% CIs were often wide, indicating uncertainty. TAVI may reduce the risk of certain side effects while SAVR may reduce the risk of others. Most long-term (5-year) results are limited to older patients at high surgical risk (ie, early trials), therefore more data are required for low risk populations. Ultimately, neither surgical technique was considered dominant, and these results suggest that every patient with SAS should be individually engaged in SDM to make evidence-based, personalised decisions around their care based on the various benefits and risks associated with each treatment. Prospero registration number: CRD42019138171.

Performance of the heart team approach in daily clinical practice in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis

P1795Impact of severe aortic stenosis treatment strategy in low-risk patients: a propensity matched analysis of surgical aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Contemporary outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in patients referred for a transcatheter approach

Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis and cardiogenic shock

Which patients with aortic stenosis should be referred to surgery rather than transcatheter aortic valve implantation?

P195 CARDIOVASCULAR OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH AORTIC STENOSIS AND HYPERTENSION UNDERGOING AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

Complete transcatheter versus surgical approach to aortic stenosis with coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Complete transcatheter versus complete surgical treatment in patients with aortic valve stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease: Study-level meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data

Treating the patients in the 'grey-zone' with aortic valve disease: a comparison among conventional surgery, sutureless valves and transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aortic Stenosis With Coronary Artery Disease: SAVR or TAVR-When and How?

Transcatheter or Surgical Treatment of Aortic-Valve Stenosis

Midterm Clinical Outcomes after Isolated Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients with Aortic Stenosis

Impact of valve-sparing aortic root replacement on aortic fluid dynamics and biomechanics in patients with syndromic heritable thoracic aortic disease

Personalised Treatment in Aortic Stenosis: A Patient-Tailored Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Approach

Comparison between transcatheter and surgical prosthetic valve implantation in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

Selection for transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement and mid-term survival: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Is A Viable Option For Aortic Stenosis Patients Presenting With Cardiogenic Shock

Randomised study for the Optimal Treatment of symptomatic patients with low-gradient severe Aortic valve Stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (ROTAS trial)

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Heart failure hospitalization following surgical or transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low‐risk aortic stenosis

Early reduction of left atrial function predicts adverse clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement