Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

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.

Original publication




Journal article


Catheter Cardiovasc Interv

Publication Date



aortic stenosis, coronary artery bypass grafting, coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, surgical aortic valve replacement, transcatheter aortic valve replacement