Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the commonly used approach for aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with aortic stenosis at low or intermediate surgical risk. However, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as an alternative to SAVR for AVR. This meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of TAVR versus SAVR in low-to-intermediate surgical risk patients by analyzing temporal trends in the outcomes of TAVR and SAVR at various follow-up intervals, providing a more detailed understanding. Methods: A thorough literature search was performed across PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from their inception up to May 2024 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using a random-effects model to pool risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Results: A total of 17 studies reporting data at different follow-ups for nine trials were included (n=9092). No statistically significant difference was observed between TAVR and SAVR for reducing all-cause death at 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years but significantly increased risk with TAVR at 5 years or longer follow-up (RR=1.13, 95% CI: 1.03–1.23). However, TAVR was associated with a significantly decreased risk for cardiac death at 1-year follow-up (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.64–0.96) and comparable risk for cardiac death at 30 days, 2 years, and 5 years or longer follow-up when compared with SAVR. No statistically significant difference was observed between TAVR and SAVR for reducing the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) at 30 days, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years or longer follow-up. TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding events at 30 days (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.21–0.67); lower risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) at 30 days (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.26–0.54) and 1 year (RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.41–0.82) and lower risk of new onset or worsening atrial fibrillation (AF) at 30 days (RR=0.25, 95% CI: 0.18–0.34), 1 year (RR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.16–0.41) and 2 years (RR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.20–0.49) when compared with SAVR. However, TAVR was associated with a significantly increased risk of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) at 30 days (RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 1.40–4.91), at 1 year (RR: 2.19, 95% CI: 1.24–3.87), at 2 years (RR: 2.74, 95% CI: 1.31–5.71), and beyond 5 years (RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.20–3.15). TAVR was also associated with a significantly increased risk of prosthetic valve thrombosis at 2 years (RR=2.70, 95% CI: 1.08–6.71), though no significant association was observed at 30 days, 1 year, or 5 years. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in aortic-valve reintervention rates at 30 days, 2 years, or 5 years, but TAVR showed a significantly increased risk at 1 year (RR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.21–3.24). TAVR was associated with a significantly increased risk of major vascular complications at 30 days (RR=2.37, 95% CI: 1.38–4.04) and a significantly increased risk of TIA at 2 years (RR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.02–2.00, I ²=0%). The risk of hospitalizations was comparable between the groups. Conclusion: TAVR and SAVR demonstrated comparable rates of all-cause death up to 2 years of follow-up. However, at 5 years or longer follow-up, TAVR was associated with a higher risk of all-cause death. While TAVR showed certain procedural advantages, such as a lower risk of major bleeding, AKI, and new-onset or worsening AF, the choice between TAVR and SAVR in patients with low or intermediate surgical risk should consider long-term outcomes, with SAVR potentially being more favorable due to better survival observed on longer follow-up durations.

Multiple clinical trials have shown that aspirin can reduce all cardiovascular events in primary and secondary prevention and yet there is a large population in whom aspirin fails. This review brings together the evidence and controversies surrounding the definition of ‘aspirin treatment failure’, its clinical significance and the possible approaches to managing such patients. Several different assays have been developed to measure the biochemical action of aspirin. At present there is no ‘gold standard’ and there is massive disparity between methods. Studies thus far have shown inconsistent results and to date the treatment of aspirin therapy failure is left to the discretion of the leading physician.

Background/Objectives: Few studies have analyzed in-hospital complications and events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures for patients who underwent these interventions for single-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD). This study aims to compare the outcomes of PCI and CABG in such patients using a large propensity-matched real-world database based on procedural codes. Methods: Adult patients receiving PCI or CABG for single-vessel CAD were identified from the 2016–2020 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database. Any cases targeting multi-vessel disease or employing a multi-treatment approach were excluded using appropriate procedural codes. Differences in events and complications from admission to discharge were studied between the two procedures (PCI vs. CABG) via logistic regression analysis. Results: After propensity matching with 273,380 patients in both groups, complication risks such as cardiac tamponade (aOR: 3.6 [3.27–3.96]), acute kidney injury (aOR: 1.53 [1.51–1.56]), cardiogenic shock (aOR: 1.38 [1.34–1.40]), procedural bleeding (aOR: 1.75 [1.67–1.83]), acute ischemic stroke (aOR: 1.89 [1.80–1.97]), and all-cause mortality (aOR: 1.05 [1.02–1.08]) were higher among CABG patients. No differences were observed for events of cardiac perforation (aOR: 0.92, [0.84–1.01]). Conclusions: In this large real-world propensity-matched analysis, CABG was associated with higher risks of multiple in-hospital complications and all-cause mortality compared to PCI following a single-vessel coronary intervention.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.