OBJECTIVE: To present basic clinical characteristics and comorbidities of patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and to determine the differences between those treated with conventional open-heart surgery (SAVR) and transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI) during 2021 at University Hospital of Split. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 144 patients were included in this observational retrospective study, of whom 93 underwent TAVI procedure, and 51 SAVR. Age, gender, EuroSCORE II, NYHA stage, comorbidities, cardiac bypass, percutaneous coronary intervention, laboratory parameters, days of hospitalization and ultrasound parameters were analyzed. The data were entered into the Microsoft Excel program and statistically analyzed in R v3.2.2 program. RESULTS: Out of a total of 144 patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of severe aortic stenosis, 93 (65%) underwent TAVI, and 51 (35%) underwent SAVR. In both groups, men predominated, in the TAVI group 56%, and in the SAVR group 69% of patients. Basic demographic, anamnestic, laboratory and ultrasound parameters in relation to the performed procedure show that TAVI patients are older, have weaker renal function and more comorbidities. A statistically significant difference was found in hospitalization days after the procedure (P<0.001; median TAVI 4 days, SAVR 19 days). Among TAVI patients, a higher number of previous cardiac surgical revascularizations (CABG) was found in the younger age group ≤75 years (P=0.033). Patients undergoing SAVR aged ≥65 years had a significantly higher operative risk (P=0.006), higher NYHA status (P=0.040) and lower glomerular filtration (P=0.003) compared to the age group <65 years. Analysis of the parameters of patients undergoing TAVI procedure ≤75 years and SAVR procedure ≥65 years showed a significant difference in hospitalization days (P<0.00; median TAVI 3 days, SAVR 13 days). Patients undergoing SAVR and CABG in the same act have a much higher operative risk (P=0.003) and a longer hospitalization (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A third of the patients were aged 65 to 75. There was no significant difference in the choice of the method or the characteristics of the patients and their age, which confirms the spread of the use of TAVI in younger and low-risk patients. Patients treated with the TAVI method had a very quick recovery and excellent hemodynamic parameters after the procedure.