Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27943176›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2017

Rationale and design of the Edwards SAPIEN-3 periprosthetic leakage evaluation versus Medtronic CoreValve in transfemoral aortic valve implantation (ELECT) trial : A randomised comparison of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve prostheses.

M Abawi, P Agostoni, N H M Kooistra, M Samim, F Nijhoff, M Voskuil, H Nathoe, P A Doevendans, S A Chamuleau, K Urgel and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Randomised comparison of a balloon-expandable and self-expandable valve with quantitative assessment of aortic regurgitation using magnetic resonance imaging.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

M AbawiDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P AgostoniDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
N H M KooistraDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M SamimDepartment of Cardiology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
F NijhoffDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M VoskuilDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
H NathoeDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P A DoevendansDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
S A ChamuleauDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
K UrgelDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J HendrikseDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
T LeinerDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A C AbrahamsDepartment of Nephrology and Hypertension, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
B van der WorpDepartment of Neurology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P R StellaDepartment of Cardiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. p.stella@umcutrecht.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesPeriprosthetic aortic regurgitation (PPR) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) remains an important issue associated with impaired long-term outcomes. The current randomised study aims to evaluate potential differences between the balloon-expandable Edwards SAPIEN-3 and the self-expanding Medtronic CoreValve system with the main focus on post-TAVI PPR by means of novel imaging endpoints, and an additional focus on other clinical endpoints. ENDPOINTS: The primary endpoint of this study is quantitative assessment of the severity of post-procedural PPR using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Several other novel imaging modalities (X-ray contrast angiography, echocardiography) are used as secondary imaging modalities for the assessment of PPR following TAVI. Secondary objectives of the study include clinical outcomes such as cerebral and kidney injury related to TAVI, and quality of life. METHODS AND

designThe ELECT study is a single-centre, prospective, two-armed randomised controlled trial. For the purpose of this study, 108 consecutive adult patients suitable for transfemoral TAVI will be randomly allocated to receive the SAPIEN-3 (n = 54) or the CoreValve system (n = 54). DISCUSSION: The ELECT trial is the first randomised controlled trial to quantitatively compare the extent of post-TAVI PPR between the SAPIEN-3 and CoreValve. Furthermore, it will evaluate potential differences between the two prostheses with regard to mid-term clinical outcome and quality of life.

Indexed as

CoreValvePeriprosthetic aortic regurgitationSAPIEN-3Transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Identifiers

PMID27943176
PMCPMC5405023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.