ADVERTISMENT
Sharecare Professional

Dx Dialogues: Aortic stenosis

TAVR and SAVR: comparable long-term outcomes in low-risk patients

Trial data show comparable long-term outcomes, with differences in thrombosis and pacemaker rates.

Aortic Stenosis Common and Lethal

Revised and updated by Stephanie Neary, PhD, MPA, MMS, PA-C – April 2026. Written by Annette Boyle; medically reviewed by Mark Arrendondo, MD, FACS – May 2024.

Long-term data now support comparable outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) across low- and intermediate-risk populations, with both approaches demonstrating durable valve performance at mid-term follow-up in low-risk patients.

A 2023 meta-analysis of 12 studies including 37,825 intermediate- to high-risk patients found no significant differences between TAVR and SAVR in all-cause mortality (RR 1.03), 30-day mortality (RR 0.84), new-onset atrial fibrillation, or vascular complications.1 TAVR was associated with a 25% reduction in stroke risk (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.92) and a 68% reduction in respiratory complications (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.52), while pacemaker implantation rates were higher with TAVR (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.67).1

The PARTNER 3 trial randomized 1,000 low-risk patients (mean age 73 years) to TAVR with a balloon-expandable valve or SAVR.2 Early results favored TAVR, with the primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, or rehospitalization occurring in 8.5% of the TAVR arm versus 15.1% of SAVR patients at one year.2 Seven-year follow-up data showed no statistically significant differences between groups: the primary endpoint occurred in 34.6% of TAVR and 37.2% of SAVR patients. All-cause mortality was 19.5% with TAVR and 16.8% with SAVR (non-significant). Bioprosthetic valve failure was 6.9% versus 7.3%, with similar reintervention rates.3

Five-year results from the Evolut Low Risk trial confirmed non-inferiority of TAVR with a supra-annular self-expanding valve. The primary endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke was 15.5% with TAVR and 16.4% with SAVR (non-significant). Atrial fibrillation remained substantially lower with TAVR (16.3% vs. 41.2%), while permanent pacemaker implantation rates were higher (27% vs. 11.3%), though pacemaker placement did not affect 5-year mortality.4 Both trials have 10-year follow-up planned, which will be particularly informative for the growing population of younger, lower-risk patients.

Take our aortic stenosis quiz to see how your knowledge compares to your peers.

Article Sourcesopen article sources

[1] Severe Aortic Stenosis. J Clin Med. 2023 Aug 11;12(16):5236. doi: 10.3390/jcm12165236. PMID: 37629278; PMCID: PMC10455769.

[2] Mack MJ, Leon MB, Thourani VH, et al; PARTNER 3 Investigators. Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years. N Engl J Med. 2023 Nov 23;389(21):1949-1960. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2307447. Epub 2023 Oct 24. PMID: 37874020.

[3] Leon MB, Mack MJ, Pibarot P, et al. Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at 7 Years. N Engl J Med. 2026;394(8):773-783. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2509766

[4] Erdem S, Goel SS, Reardon MJ. Five-year Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Surgery in Low-risk Aortic Stenosis: Insights from the Evolut Low Risk Trial. Heart Int. 2025;19(2):3-4. Published 2025 Nov 24. doi:10.17925/HI.2025.19.2.5

ADVERTISMENT