Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29168984›Full record

SynthesisClinical cardiology2017

Transcatheter vs surgical aortic-valve replacement in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk candidates: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Safi U Khan, Ahmad N Lone, Muhammad A Saleem, Edo Kaluski

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Aortic Valve Replacement in the Current Era.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis of randomised trials.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Surgical treatment of elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis in the modern era - review.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2018
    Review
  15. Observational
  16. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Safi U KhanDepartment of Internal Medicine, Guthrie Clinic/Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, Pennsylvania.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1559-6911
Ahmad N LoneDepartment of Internal Medicine, Guthrie Clinic/Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, Pennsylvania.
Muhammad A SaleemDepartment of Family Medicine, Mercy Health, Janesville, Wisconsin.
Edo KaluskiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Guthrie Clinic/Robert Packer Hospital, Sayre, Pennsylvania.
SUNY Upstate Medical University · USMercy Health System · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The American and European expert documents recommend transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for inoperable or high-surgical-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. In comparison, efficacy of TAVR is relatively less studied in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk patients. We sought to discover whether TAVR can be as effective as surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk candidates. Four randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and 8 prospective matched studies were selected using PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception: March 2017). Results were reported as random-effects odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Among 9851 patients, analyses of RCTs showed that all-cause mortality was comparable between TAVR and SAVR (short term, OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.86-1.64, P = 0.30; mid-term, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.75-1.26, P = 0.84; and long term, OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.81-1.16, P = 0.76). The analysis restricted to matched studies showed similar outcomes. In the analysis stratified by study design, no significant differences were noted in the RCTs for stroke, whereas TAVR was better than SAVR in matched studies at short term only (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.33-0.65, P < 0.001). TAVR is associated with reduced risk of acute kidney injury and new-onset atrial fibrillation (P < 0.05). However, increased incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leaks was observed with TAVR. TAVR can provide similar mortality outcome compared with SAVR in low- to intermediate-surgical-risk patients with critical aortic stenosis. However, both procedures are associated with their own array of adverse events.

Indexed as

Heart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementAortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisHumansOdds RatioRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisSurgical Aortic Valve ReplacementTranscatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Identifiers

PMID29168984
PMCPMC6490337
OpenAlexW2769396802

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.