Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28451702›Full record

SynthesisHerz2018

Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement and medical treatment : Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized trials.

A Ak, I Porokhovnikov, F Kuethe, P C Schulze, M Noutsias, P Schlattmann

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Herz, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for pure aortic valve regurgitation: "on-label" versus "off-label" use of TAVR devices.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

A AkInstitute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Documentation (IMSID), Friedrich-Schiller University and University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany.
I PorokhovnikovInstitute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Documentation (IMSID), Friedrich-Schiller University and University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany.
F KuetheDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Division of Cardiology, Pneumology, Angiology and Intensive Medical Care, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
P C SchulzeDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Division of Cardiology, Pneumology, Angiology and Intensive Medical Care, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.
M NoutsiasDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Division of Cardiology, Pneumology, Angiology and Intensive Medical Care, University Hospital Jena, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Jena, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9066-5262
P SchlattmannInstitute of Medical Statistics, Informatics and Documentation (IMSID), Friedrich-Schiller University and University Hospital Jena, Bachstraße 18, 07743, Jena, Germany. peter.schlattmann@med.uni-jena.de.
Friedrich Schiller University Jena · DEJena University Hospital · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as the procedure of choice for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high perioperative risk. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the mortality related to TAVR with medical therapy (MT) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted by two independent investigators from the database inception to 30 December 2014. Relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) were calculated and graphically displayed in forest plots. We used I

resultsWe included 24 studies (n = 19 observational studies; n = 5 randomized controlled trials), with a total of 7356 patients in this meta-analysis. Mean age had a substantial negative impact on the long-term survival of AS patients (OR = 1.544; 95% CI: 1.25-1.90). Compared with MT, TAVR showed a statistically significant benefit for all-cause mortality at 12 months (OR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.49-0.95). Both TAVR and SAVR were associated with better outcomes compared with MT. TAVR showed lower all-cause mortality over SAVR at 12 months (OR = 0.81; 95% CI: 0.68-0.97). The comparison between SAVR and TAVR at 2 years revealed no significant difference (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.01-1.17).

conclusionIn AS, both TAVR and SAVR provide a superior prognosis to MT and, therefore, MT is not the preferred treatment option for AS. Furthermore, our data show that TAVR is associated with lower mortality at 12 months compared with SAVR. Further studies are warranted to compare the long-term outcome of TAVR versus SAVR beyond a 2-year follow-up period.

Indexed as

Aortic Valve StenosisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationPercutaneous Coronary InterventionTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementAgedAged, 80 and overAortic ValveFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeAortic stenosisMortalityOptimal medical treatmentSurgical aortic valve replacementTranscatheter aortic valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID28451702
OpenAlexW2610099761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.