Evidence Hub

Comparative Effectiveness of TAVI Platforms and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Francesco Moroni, P. Lamelas, A. Izcovich, F. Foroutan, S. Fremes, A. C. Alba, T. Agoritsas, Richard Whitlock et al.

Circulation. Cardiovascular Interventions, 2025

9,946 participants · 4 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Evidence informing clinical guidelines assumes that all transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices have similar effectiveness, in other words, displaying a class effect across TAVI valves. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness of different TAVI platforms relative to other TAVI counterparts or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

METHODS

MEDLINE/Embase/CENTRAL were searched from inception until April 2025, for randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes with different commercially available TAVI devices relative to other TAVI counterparts or SAVR. The certainty of the evidence was assessed following the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis to generate treatment effect estimates. All-cause, cardiovascular mortality, and stroke were considered critically important patient-centered outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 11 randomized controlled trials with 9946 participants and reporting outcomes between 1 to 10 years. TAVI with CoreValve-Evolut was associated with a similar risk of all-cause (absolute risk difference [ARD], 31/1000 from -12 to 79), and cardiovascular mortality (ARD, -8/1000 from -39 to 28) compared with SAVR (moderate certainty). Compared with SAVR, TAVI with SAPIEN and ACURATE neo were associated with an increased risk of all-cause (ARD, 109/1000 from 56 to 169, high certainty and ARD, 123/1000 from 9 to 277, moderate certainty,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 9,946 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free