Transcatheter aortic valve replacement and percutaneous coronary intervention versus surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with severe aortic stenosis and concomitant coronary artery disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the early and midterm outcomes of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) against patients who had transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Background Contemporary guidelines suggest that surgical or percutaneous revascularization of significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a reasonable strategy.Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of Medline and Embase to identify studies comparing a percutaneous transcatheter versus a surgical approach. Random effects meta-analyses using the Mantel-Haenszel method were performed to estimate the effect of percutaneous compared surgical strategies using aggregate data.Results Six studies reporting on 1770 participants were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in effect estimates for early and midterm mortality (OR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20 and OR: 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80-1.49, respectively) or myocardial infarction (OR: 0.52; 95% CI, 0.20-1.33 and OR: 1.34; 95% CI, 0.67-2.65, respectively). No significant difference was shown for peri-procedural stroke (OR: 0.80; 95% CI, 0.35-1.87). A transcatheter approach had a higher rate of major vascular complications (OR: 14.44; 95% CI, 4.42-47.16), but a lower rate of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19-0.91).Conclusion Our analysis suggests that a percutaneous transcatheter approach confers similar outcomes compared to a surgical approach in patients with severe AS and CAD. However, our findings are based on low quality studies and should serve as hypothesis generating. In the absence of adequately powered studies yielding high level evidence, individualized decision making should be based on surgical risk assessment.