ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficiency and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis at intermediate-low risk compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).MethodsTwo researchers searched literatures independently in databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Internet, VIP database for studies published from January 2012 to October 2017, then screened for propriate studies, collected information from different follow-up period all on the principle of Cocharan handbook. At last statistal analysis was performed in RevMan 5.3 to calculate relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI).ResultsThirteen studies were enrolled in this Meta-analysis with 10 753 patients, including 5 263 cases in TAVR group and 5 490 cases in SAVR group. Meta-analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences in all-cause mortality between TAVR group and SAVR group in 30 days, 1 year or 2 years after operation [RR=0.96, 95%CI (0.75, 1.24), P=0.78; RR=0.84, 95%CI (0.68, 1.03), P=0.09; RR=0.97, 95%CI (0.84, 1.14), P=0.75]; while stroke more preferred SAVR no matter 30 days or 1 year [RR=0.64, 95%CI (0.51, 0.80), P<0.000 1;RR=0.76, 95%CI (0.63, 0.92), P=0.004].ConclusionThere is no significant difference in all-cause mortality of intermediate-low risk patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR, but TAVR perfoms better in terms of srtoke.