Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
186,541 studies31 sourcesUpdated 12 min ago
PreprintCC BY-NC-NDmedRxiv

Early Valve Replacement vs Surveillance in Moderate Aortic Stenosis: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Evidence

  1. 1Lebanese American University Gilbert and Rose-Marie Chagoury School of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Moderate aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with excess mortality, and 2 randomized trials have tested early transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to estimate the effects of early TAVR vs clinical surveillance and to compare randomized with observational estimates. METHODS: Six databases and registries were searched through November 3, 2026. Adjusted observational studies were synthesized separately from trials. Certainty was rated with GRADE. RESULTS: Two trials (922 patients; TAVR UNLOAD, n = 178, HF with reduced ejection fraction; PROGRESS, n = 744, 96.4% symptomatic) and 7 cohorts were included. Early TAVR did not detectably change death over approximately 2 years (HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.74-1.49; low certainty), with one-fifth of the deaths needed to detect a 20% reduction. Heart failure (HF) hospitalization was lower (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.36-0.77; low certainty), or 70 fewer patients per 1,000 at 2 years. New pacemakers were more frequent (PROGRESS: 17.3% vs 9.3%; moderate certainty). About half of surveillance patients underwent valve replacement within 2 years. Observational cohorts estimated a 48% mortality reduction (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.43-0.64; very low certainty), which differed from the randomized estimate (ratio of HRs: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.37-2.95). CONCLUSIONS: In older, predominantly symptomatic patients with moderate AS, early TAVR may make little or no difference to 2-year mortality and may reduce HF hospitalization, at the cost of more pacemakers. Because about half of patients under surveillance receive a valve within 2 years, the decision largely concerns timing. Observational survival estimates should not guide practice.

Related

  1. 10-Year Randomized Outcomes of Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Aortic Stenosis
    Vinod H. Thourani, Philipp von Stein, Michael J. Mack +22
    Journal of the American College of CardiologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND8 citedCardiovascular medicineOpenAlex
  2. Diagnostic Performance of a Deep Learning Model Using Phonocardiogram and Single‐Lead ECG Signals for Detecting Moderate‐or‐Greater Aortic Stenosis: Multicenter External Validation
    Shumpei Saito, Masanobu Ishii, Shimpei Ogawa +21
    Clinical cardiologyPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textCardiovascular medicineEurope PMC
  3. Machine Learning identification in patients with aortic valve stenosis of a myocardial miRNA signature predictive of reverse cardiac remodelling after valve replacement
    C. Juarez, J. F. Nistal, I. de la Torre-Cubillo +4
    medRxivPreprintAll rights reservedFull textCardiovascular medicinemedRxiv
  4. Single-Stage Computed Tomography Angiography, Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in an Octogenarian With Femoral Neck Fracture, Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction, and Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Case Report and Literature Review of Multidisciplinary Approaches
    Ming Zhang, Xietian Pan, Lina Yang +9
    Reviews in cardiovascular medicinePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textCardiovascular medicineEurope PMC
  5. Coexisting Moderate-to-Severe Tricuspid Regurgitation and Renal Dysfunction Identify a High-Risk Group After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement
    Philipp Lauten, Birgit Markus, Georgios Chatzis +4
    Journal of cardiovascular development and diseasePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textCardiovascular medicineEurope PMC
BibTeX
@misc{majed2026early,
  title = {{Early Valve Replacement vs Surveillance in Moderate Aortic Stenosis: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Evidence}},
  author = {A. Majed and P. Kmeid and A. Safa and H. Kahwaji and H. Safieddine and G. Ghanem},
  howpublished = {medRxiv},
  year = {2026},
  month = nov,
  doi = {10.64898/2026.11.04.26367266},
  url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.11.04.26367266v1},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY  - UNPB
TI  - Early Valve Replacement vs Surveillance in Moderate Aortic Stenosis: Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Evidence
AU  - A. Majed
AU  - P. Kmeid
AU  - A. Safa
AU  - H. Kahwaji
AU  - H. Safieddine
AU  - G. Ghanem
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/11/04
PB  - medRxiv
DO  - 10.64898/2026.11.04.26367266
UR  - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.11.04.26367266v1
AB  - BACKGROUND: Moderate aortic stenosis (AS) is associated with excess mortality, and 2 randomized trials have tested early transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to estimate the effects of early TAVR vs clinical surveillance and to compare randomized with observational estimates. METHODS: Six databases and registries were searched through November 3, 2026. Adjusted observational studies were synthesized separately from trials. Certainty was rated with GRADE. RESULTS: Two trials (922 patients; TAVR UNLOAD, n = 178, HF with reduced ejection fraction; PROGRESS, n = 744, 96.4% symptomatic) and 7 cohorts were included. Early TAVR did not detectably change death over approximately 2 years (HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.74-1.49; low certainty), with one-fifth of the deaths needed to detect a 20% reduction. Heart failure (HF) hospitalization was lower (RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.36-0.77; low certainty), or 70 fewer patients per 1,000 at 2 years. New pacemakers were more frequent (PROGRESS: 17.3% vs 9.3%; moderate certainty). About half of surveillance patients underwent valve replacement within 2 years. Observational cohorts estimated a 48% mortality reduction (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.43-0.64; very low certainty), which differed from the randomized estimate (ratio of HRs: 2.01; 95% CI: 1.37-2.95). CONCLUSIONS: In older, predominantly symptomatic patients with moderate AS, early TAVR may make little or no difference to 2-year mortality and may reduce HF hospitalization, at the cost of more pacemakers. Because about half of patients under surveillance receive a valve within 2 years, the decision largely concerns timing. Observational survival estimates should not guide practice.
ER  -