Observational studyClinical cardiology2018
In-hospital outcomes comparison of transfemoral vs transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched cohorts with severe aortic stenosis.
Observational study in Clinical cardiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term outcomes of transapical-transcatheter aortic valve replacement.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2025Article
- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement among heart transplant recipients with donor aortic valve diseases: a systematic review of the literature.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2023Article
- Cardiovascular outcomes and trends of Transcatheter vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement among octogenarians with heart failure: A Propensity Matched national cohort analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2022Article
- Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement in High-Surgical Risk Patients: A Single-Center Experience and Outcome.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2022Article
- Current Devices and Complications Related to Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: The Bumpy Road to the Top.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Analysis and Study on the Quality of Life of Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2021Article
- TAVR: A Review of Current Practices and Considerations in Low-Risk Patients.Journal of interventional cardiology · 2020Review
- Health-related quality of life following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using transaortic, transfemoral approaches and surgical aortic valve replacement-a single-center study.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2018Article
- Alternate Access for TAVI: Stay Clear of the Chest.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2018Review
- In-hospital outcomes comparison of transfemoral vs transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement in propensity-matched cohorts with severe aortic stenosis.Clinical cardiology · 2018Observational
- Sex differences in 30-day readmission rates, etiology, and predictors after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the preferred option for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis. The preferred access for TAVR is transfemoral (TF). Alternatives include the transapical (TA), trans-subclavian (TS), and direct aortic (TAo) approaches. HYPOTHESIS: The TF approach is associated with lower in-hospital outcomes as well as shorter length of stay and lower cost of hospitalization.
methodsThe National Inpatient Sample database from 2012 through 2014 was used to obtain the TAVR study population. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes were utilized to identify the 2 groups. In-hospital outcomes were compared in propensity-score-matched (1:3) cohorts, in which we took TA-TAVR as a control.
resultsA total of 8210 (weighted N = 41 050) patients were identified. Of these, 1622 (weighted N = 8110) patients underwent TA-TAVR and 6588 (weighted N = 32 940) patients underwent TF-TAVR. In-hospital mortality was lower with TF-TAVR (4% vs 5.4%; P = 0.0355), along with a shorter length of stay (7.7 vs 9.7 days; P < 0.0001) and lower median hospitalization cost ($64 216 vs $74 735; P < 0.0001). Secondary outcomes of acute renal failure, transfusion, cardiogenic shock, and composite of all complications were lower with TF-TAVR.
conclusionsTF-TAVR is safer and associated with lower in-hospital outcomes compared with TA-TAVR and should be the preferred approach. As TAVR is gaining popularity in intermediate- and low-risk patients, we must not lose sight of the serious mortality and secondary outcomes associated with TA-TAVR access.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.