ABSTRACT
The aim of this research is to compare the long-term incidence of stroke in intermediate-risk patients who have undergone either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) procedures. The objective is to identify which method exhibits a higher propensity for stroke occurrence, potentially contributing to disability or stroke-related mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the frequency of stroke post-TAVR and SAVR procedures. Data were compiled from a diverse array of research articles, retrieved from the Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases. Conclusions were derived from the comprehensive analysis of forest plots. The analysis indicates no significant reduction in stroke incidence among patients undergoing TAVR compared to those receiving SAVR. This conclusion, underscored by a P-value of 0.76 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 0.80 to 1.17, arises from a careful review of multiple pertinent studies. The meta-analysis of pooled data does not reveal a significant decrease in stroke frequency associated with TAVR. For intermediate-risk patients, both TAVR and SAVR present similar stroke risks, indicating no procedure is inherently safer. Healthcare providers must take this into account when counseling patients, considering each procedure's benefits and drawbacks. This study focuses specifically on intermediate-risk individuals, so results may not apply universally. Further research across different risk categories is needed. This study emphasizes the need for individualized patient care and informed decision-making in aortic stenosis management.
