, Volume 43, Issue 4, pp 325–337 | Cite as

Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement and medical treatment

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials
  • A. Ak
  • I. Porokhovnikov
  • F. Kuethe
  • P. C. Schulze
  • M. Noutsias
  • P. Schlattmann
Original articles



Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as the procedure of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high perioperative risk. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the mortality related to TAVR with medical therapy (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).


A systematic literature search was conducted by two independent investigators from the database inception to 30 December 2014. Relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were calculated and graphically displayed in forest plots. We used I 2 for heterogeneity (meta-regression) and Egger’s regression test of asymmetry (funnel plots).


We included 24 studies (n = 19 observational studies; n = 5 randomized controlled trials), with a total of 7356 patients in this meta-analysis. Mean age had a substantial negative impact on the long-term survival of AS patients (OR = 1.544; 95% CI: 1.25–1.90). Compared with MT, TAVR showed a statistically significant benefit for all-cause mortality at 12 months (OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49–0.95). Both TAVR and SAVR were associated with better outcomes compared with MT. TAVR showed lower all-cause mortality over SAVR at 12 months (OR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68–0.97). The comparison between SAVR and TAVR at 2 years revealed no significant difference (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01–1.17).


In AS, both TAVR and SAVR provide a superior prognosis to MT and, therefore, MT is not the preferred treatment option for AS. Furthermore, our data show that TAVR is associated with lower mortality at 12 months compared with SAVR. Further studies are warranted to compare the long-term outcome of TAVR versus SAVR beyond a 2-year follow-up period.


Aortic stenosis Mortality Transcatheter aortic valve replacement Surgical aortic valve replacement Optimal medical treatment 

Transkatheter- vs. operative Aortenklappenimplantation und medikamentöse Therapie

Systematische Übersicht und Metaanalyse randomisierter und nichtrandomisierter Studien



Die Transkatheter-Aortenklappenimplantation („transcatheter aortic valve implantation“, TAVI) hat sich für Patienten mit relevanter Aortenklappenstenose (AS) und hohem perioperativem Risiko zu einem Standardverfahren entwickelt. Die Autoren untersuchten die Mortalität der TAVI vs. medikamentöse Therapie (MT) und operativen Aortenklappenersatz („surgical aortic valve replacement“, SAVR) in einer Metaanalyse.


Eine systematische Literaturrecherche wurde von 2 unabhängigen Untersuchern bis 30.12.2014 durchgeführt. Das relative Risiko (RR) wurde kalkuliert und grafisch in „forest plots“ dargestellt. Die Autoren verwendeten I2 für Heterogenität (Metaregression) und den Egger-Regressionstest für Asymmetrie („funnel plots“).


Es wurden n = 24 Studien (n = 19 Beobachtungsstudien, „observational studies“, OS; und n = 5 randomisierte kontrollierte Studien, „randomized controlled trials“, RCT), mit insgesamt n = 7356 Patienten in diese Metaanalyse eingeschlossen. Das mittlere Alter der Patienten hatte einen entscheidenden negativen Einfluss auf das Langzeitüberleben der AS-Patienten (Odds Ratio, OR: 1,544; 95%-Konfidenzintervall, 95%-KI: 1,25–1,90). Sowohl die TAVI als auch die SAVR waren mit besserem Überleben assoziiert als die MT. Bei 12 Monaten Follow-up-Dauer war die TAVI im Vergleich zur MT mit einem signifikanten klinischen Vorteil für die Gesamtmortalität bei 12 Monaten assoziiert (OR = 0,68; 95%-KI: 0,49–0,95). Während die TAVI bei 12 Monaten Follow-up eine signifikant niedrigere Gesamtmortalität als die SAVR zeigte (OR = 0,81; 95%-KI: 0,68–0,97), war dieser Vergleich bei 2 Jahren Follow-up ohne signifikanten Unterschied (RR = 1,09; 95%-KI: 1,01–1,17).


Sowohl die TAVI als auch die SAVR sind der MT bei AS überlegen. Die MT stellt keine bevorzugte Option bei AS dar. Darüber hinaus zeigen die vorliegenden Daten eine Überlegenheit der TAVI versus SAVR hinsichtlich der Mortalität bei 12 Monaten. Weitere Studien sind erforderlich, um das Überleben bei AS nach TAVI versus SAVR über das 2‑Jahres-Follow-up hinaus zu vergleichen.


Aortenstenose Mortalität Transkatheter-Aortenklappenimplantation Operative Aortenklappenimplantation Optimale medizinische Behandlung 




Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

M. Noutsias has received honoraria for presentations and/or attended advisory boards for Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Fresenius, Miltenyi Biotech, and Zoll, and was consultant to the IKDT (Institut für Kardiale Diagnostik und Therapie, Berlin, Germany). A. Ak, I. Porokhovnikov, F. Kuethe, P. C. Schulze, and P. Schlattmann declare that they have no competing interests.

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

59_2017_4562_MOESM1_ESM.docx (927 kb)
Online Addtions Tables and Figures


  1. 1.
    Iung B, Vahanian A (2011) Epidemiology of valvular heart disease in the adult. Nat Rev Cardiol 8(3):162–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG et al (2003) A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: The Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J 24(13):1231–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwarz F, Baumann P, Manthey J et al (1982) The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation 66(5):1105–1110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Panayiotides IM, Nikolaides E (2014) Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): is it time for this intervention to be applied in a lower risk population? Clin Med Insights Cardiol 8:93–102CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kolh P, Lahaye L, Gerard P, Limet R (1999) Aortic valve replacement in the octogenarians: perioperative outcome and clinical follow-up. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 16(1):68–73CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cribier A, Eltchaninoff H, Bash A et al (2002) Percutaneous transcatheter implantation of an aortic valve prosthesis for calcific aortic stenosis: first human case description. Circulation 106(24):3006–3008CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack M et al (2010) Transcatheter aortic-valve implantation for aortic stenosis in patients who cannot undergo surgery. N Engl J Med 363(17):1597–1607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ et al (2011) Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 364(23):2187–2198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagaraja V, Raval J, Eslick GD, Ong AT (2014) Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised and non-randomised trials. Open Heart 1(1):e000013CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cao C, Ang SC, Indraratna P et al (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2(1):10–23PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A et al (2006) Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ 332(7535):202–209CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7(3):177–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Song F, Sheldon TA, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR (2001) Methods for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Eval Health Prof 24(2):126–151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315(7109):629–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    meta:General Package for Meta-Analysis.R package version 4.1-0 []. Accessed 20.01.2013
  17. 17.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. []. Accessed 20.01.2013
  18. 18.
    Pilgrim T, Englberger L, Rothenbuhler M et al (2015) Long-term outcome of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis as a function of treatment modality. Heart 101(1):30–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Im E, Hong MK, Ko YG et al (2013) Comparison of early clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement versus optimal medical therapy in patients older than 80 years with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. Yonsei Med J 54(3):596–602CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nuis RJ, Dager AE, van der Boon RM et al (2012) Patients with aortic stenosis referred for TAVI: treatment decision, in-hospital outcome and determinants of survival. Neth Heart J 20(1):16–23CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ben-Dor I, Dvir D, Barbash IM et al (2012) Outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk evaluated in a trial of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Am J Cardiol 110(7):1008–1014CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rajani R, Buxton W, Haworth P et al (2010) Prognostic benefit of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with medical therapy in patients with inoperable aortic stenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 75(7):1121–1126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dewey TM, Brown DL, Das TS et al (2008) High-risk patients referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: management and outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg 86(5):1450–1456 (discussion 1456–1457)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dvir D, Waksman R, Barbash IM et al (2014) Outcomes of patients with chronic lung disease and severe aortic stenosis treated with transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement or standard therapy: insights from the PARTNER trial (placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve). J Am Coll Cardiol 63(3):269–279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dubois C, Coosemans M, Rega F et al (2013) Prospective evaluation of clinical outcomes in all-comer high-risk patients with aortic valve stenosis undergoing medical treatment, transcatheter or surgical aortic valve implantation following heart team assessment. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 17(3):492–500CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wenaweser P, Pilgrim T, Kadner A et al (2011) Clinical outcomes of patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk according to treatment modality. J Am Coll Cardiol 58(21):2151–2162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dvir D, Sagie A, Porat E et al (2013) Clinical profile and outcome of patients with severe aortic stenosis at high surgical risk: single-center prospective evaluation according to treatment assignment. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 81(5):871–881CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yu WS, Chang BC, Joo HC, Ko YG, Lee S (2013) Comparison of early clinical results of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in symptomatic high risk severe aortic stenosis patients. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 46(5):346–352CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kodali SK, Williams MR, Smith CR et al (2012) Two-year outcomes after transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 366(18):1686–1695CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tamburino C, Barbanti M, Capodanno D et al (2012) Comparison of complications and outcomes to one year of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis. Am J Cardiol 109(10):1487–1493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Greason KL, Mathew V, Suri RM et al (2014) Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft operation: a PARTNER trial subgroup analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 98(1):1–7 (discussion 7–8)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Conradi L, Seiffert M, Treede H et al (2012) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis in patients at high surgical risk. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 143(1):64–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    D’Errigo P, Barbanti M, Ranucci M et al (2013) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis: results from an intermediate risk propensity-matched population of the Italian OBSERVANT study. Int J Cardiol 167(5):1945–1952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Piazza N, Kalesan B, van Mieghem N et al (2013) A 3‑center comparison of 1‑year mortality outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement on the basis of propensity score matching among intermediate-risk surgical patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6(5):443–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Latib A, Maisano F, Bertoldi L et al (2012) Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in intermediate-surgical-risk patients with aortic stenosis: a propensity score-matched case-control study. Am Heart J 164(6):910–917CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Amonn K, Stortecky S, Brinks H et al (2013) Quality of life in high-risk patients: comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 43(1):34–41 (discussion 41–32)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wilbring M, Tugtekin SM, Alexiou K et al (2013) Transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs conventional aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with previous cardiac surgery: a propensity-score analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 44(1):42–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Muneretto C, Bisleri G, Moggi A et al (2015) Treating the patients in the ‘grey-zone’ with aortic valve disease: a comparison among conventional surgery, sutureless valves and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 20(1):90–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McCarthy FH, Desai ND, Herrmann HC et al (2014) Aortic and mitral valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched patients. Ann Thorac Surg 98(4):1267–1273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nielsen HH, Klaaborg KE, Nissen H et al (2012) A prospective, randomised trial of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in operable elderly patients with aortic stenosis: the STACCATO trial. EuroIntervention 8(3):383–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Adams DH, Popma JJ, Reardon MJ (2014) Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis. N Engl J Med 371(10):967–968CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2010) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 8(5):336–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C et al (2006) ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing committee to revise the 1998 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease): developed in collaboration with the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists: endorsed by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Circulation 114(5):e84–e231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Chatterjee K et al (2008) 2008 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1998 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease). Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 52(13):e1–e142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cribier A, Savin T, Saoudi N, Rocha P, Berland J, Letac B (1986) Percutaneous transluminal valvuloplasty of acquired aortic stenosis in elderly patients: an alternative to valve replacement? Lancet 1(8472):63–67CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Serruys PW, Luijten HE, Beatt KJ et al (1988) Percutaneous balloon valvuloplasty for calcific aortic stenosis. A treatment ‘sine cure’? Eur Heart J 9(7):782–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Al-Attar N et al (2008) Transcatheter valve implantation for patients with aortic stenosis: a position statement from the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in collaboration with the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J 29(11):1463–1470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Biondi-Zoccai G, Peruzzi M, Abbate A et al (2014) Network meta-analysis on the comparative effectiveness and safety of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with CoreValve or Sapien devices versus surgical replacement. Heart Lung Vessel 6(4):232–243PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kondur A, Briasoulis A, Palla M et al (2016) Meta-analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol 117(2):252–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kische S, D’Ancona G, Agma HU et al (2016) Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in obese patients: overcoming technical challenges and maintaining adequate hemodynamic performance using new generation prostheses. Int J Cardiol 220:909–913CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Naber CK, Pyxaras SA, Ince H et al (2016) Real-world multicentre experience with the Direct Flow Medical repositionable and retrievable transcatheter aortic valve implantation system for the treatment of high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. EuroIntervention 11(11):e1314–e1320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Ando T, Briasoulis A, Holmes AA, Taub CC, Takagi H, Afonso L (2016) Sapien 3 versus Sapien XT prosthetic valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 220:472–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Panagiotou OA (2015) Network meta-analysis: evidence synthesis with mixed treatment comparison. Am J Epidemiol. doi:10.1093/aje/kwu471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brockwell SE, Gordon IR (2001) A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Med 20(6):825–840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J (2006) Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index? Psychol Methods 11(2):193–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pilgrim T, Windecker S (2014) Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Heart 100(22):1750–1756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Documentation (IMSID)Friedrich-Schiller University and University Hospital JenaJenaGermany
  2. 2.Department of Internal Medicine I, Division of Cardiology, Pneumology, Angiology and Intensive Medical CareUniversity Hospital Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-University JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations