Background and aim. Classical and paradoxical low-flow, low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLGAS) are the most challenging aortic stenosis (AS) subtypes. The current therapeutic options are aortic valve replacement (AVR) and conservative management. The matter is controversial because AVR promotes long-term survival, but it is invasive, while no aortic valve replacement (noAVR) in non-invasive, but it is associated with poor prognosis. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the survival rate in patients with LFLGAS undergoing AVR versus noAVR interventions. Methods. A meta-analysis was conducted comparing the outcomes of AVR and noAVR in terms of survival. A meta-regression was carried out to investigate the impact of preserved and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on survival in both the AVR and noAVR group. Results. The log IRR of survival between AVR group and noAVR group was 0.58 [0.28, 0.87] (p-value = 0.0001), suggesting that survival is significantly better in the AVR group compared to the noAVR group. The meta-regression revealed that low LVEF is related to higher survival rates in the AVR group (p-value = 0.04) when compared to preserved LVEF. LVEF has no impact on survival in the noAVR group (p-value = 0.18). Conclusions. Patients with LFLGAS have better survival in the AVR group rather than in the noAVR group. Reduced LVEF was related to better survival than preserved LVEF in the AVR, and no difference between low and preserved LVEF was found in the noAVR group.