ReviewCurrent cardiology reports2018
TAVR Vs. SAVR in Intermediate-Risk Patients: What Influences Our Choice of Therapy.
Review in Current cardiology reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contemporary Review of Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with Concomitant Mitral Stenosis.Current cardiology reviews · 2026Review
- Comparison of TAVR with SAVR on clinical outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- The influence of lipoprotein(a) on aortic valve calcification in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- Multimodal preoperative imaging for transcatheter mitral valve replacement in the domestic sheep model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Inspiratory Muscle and Functional Performance of Patients Entering Cardiac Rehabilitation after Cardiac Valve Replacement.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Preoperative cognition predicts clinical stroke/TIA and mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement in older adults.Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2022Article
- Biomechanics of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implant.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Patient-specific simulation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement: impact of deployment options on paravalvular leakage.Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology · 2019Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewTo determine what influences patients and physicians to choose between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-surgical-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis. RECENT
findingsAdvances in transcatheter valve technology, techniques, and trials demonstrating non-inferiority compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) have led to expanded eligibility of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to both intermediate-risk patients in clinical practice and low-risk patients in pivotal trials. Since lower-risk individuals tend to be younger and good operative candidates, concerns of valve durability, procedure-related morbidity, and patient survivability require careful consideration. Results from the PARTNER II intermediate risk trials and SURTAVI trials have given us insight into the benefits and potential risks of both treatment modalities. In this article, we review the brief yet remarkable history of TAVR and discuss its role in the treatment of intermediate-surgical-risk patients.
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.