Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in younger low-risk patients: a comprehensive meta-analysis of efficacy and safety

  • António Rocha de Almeida*
  • , Maria Rita Lima
  • , Daniel A. Gomes
  • , Renato Fernandes
  • , Eduardo Infante Oliveira
  • , Pedro Araújo Gonçalves
  • , Rui Campante Teles
  • , Manuel de Sousa Almeida
  • , Lino Patrício
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
7 Downloads

Abstract

Background and aims: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) was traditionally managed with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) emerged as a less invasive alternative, initially for high-risk patients. This meta-analysis evaluates the outcomes of TAVI in younger, low-risk patients, in whom SAVR is currently the gold standard. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TAVI with SAVR in younger (mean age <75 years) low-risk patients (STS score <4%) with severe AS. The primary endpoint was a composite of death or disabling stroke. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, disabling stroke, atrial fibrillation (AF), permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), bleeding, functional class (NYHA), and quality-of-life (KCCQ score) improvements. Results: Four RCTs were included with 4,252 patients (2,125 TAVI and 2,127 SAVR). At a mean follow-up of 16 ± 5 months, TAVI showed a non-significant reduction in the composite of death or disabling stroke [2.8% vs. 5.1% risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.96–1.00), p = 0.11] and all-cause mortality [2.1% vs. 3.7%, RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.97–1.00), p = 0.15]. The incidence of disabling stroke was significantly lower in TAVI [0.9 vs. 2.1 RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.98–1.00), p < 0.01]. Hospital readmission [7.1% vs. 9.5% RR 0.97, 95% CI (0.96–0.99), p < 0.01] and bleeding rates [4.7% vs. 16%, RR 0.87, 95% CI (0.82–0.93), p < 0.01] were significantly lower in the TAVI group. Conversely, TAVI had a higher PPI rate [14% vs. 6%, RR 1.08, 95% CI (1.02–1.14), p < 0.01]. Faster symptomatic and quality-of-life improvements were sustained in the TAVI group. Conclusions: TAVI is a viable option for younger low-risk patients with severe AS, being non-inferior to SAVR in short-term outcomes. The benefits of TAVI include a lower risk of disabling stroke, hospital readmission, and bleeding, as well as quicker improvements in symptoms and quality of life. However, higher PPI rates require careful patient selection. The results support a tailored approach to TAVI in younger patients, with ongoing evaluation of long-term outcomes. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024559473, PROSPERO (CRD42024559473).
Original languageEnglish
Article number1586477
Number of pages10
JournalFrontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Volume12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 11 Aug 2025

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Low risk
  • SAVR
  • Severe aortic stenosis
  • Short-term
  • TAVI
  • Younger

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in younger low-risk patients: a comprehensive meta-analysis of efficacy and safety'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this