Abstract Body (Do not enter title and authors here):
Introduction
Managing severe aortic stenosis in patients with a history of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is challenging. Traditionally, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was the standard treatment, but transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) offers a less invasive alternative. This meta-analysis compares the 30-day outcomes of TAVR versus SAVR in patients with prior CABG.

Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing TAVR and SAVR in patients with prior CABG were included. The primary outcomes were 30-day (cardiovascular) CV mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi-squared test and I-squared statistic. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results
Nine studies with a total of 8,487 patients were included for the 30-day outcomes. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for 30-day CV mortality was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.48-2.06), with no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR (p=0.99). For 30-day all-cause mortality, the pooled OR was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.51-1.10), also showing no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR (p=0.14). The pooled OR for 30-day myocardial infarction was 0.34 (95% CI: 0.09-1.27), indicating no significant difference between TAVR and SAVR (p=0.11). However, the pooled OR for 30-day stroke was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.50-0.90), showing a significantly lower incidence with TAVR compared to SAVR (p=0.007). Detailed results in Figure 1.

Conclusion
In patients with a history of CABG, TAVR appears to have comparable 30-day outcomes to SAVR in terms of CV mortality, all-cause mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, TAVR is associated with a significantly lower incidence of 30-day stroke. These findings suggest that TAVR may be a safer option in the short term for this high-risk patient population. Further research is needed to confirm these results in larger, randomized controlled trials.