ArticleCardiology and therapy2020
Comparative Outcomes of Transapical Versus Transfemoral Access for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Diabetics.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dose approach matter? A meta-analysis of outcomes following transfemoral versus transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Pooled it
- Diabetes and calcific aortic valve disease: controversy of clinical outcomes in diabetes after aortic valve replacement.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe outcomes of transfemoral (TF) compared with transapical (TA) access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in diabetics are unknown.
methodsWe queried the NIS database (2011-2014) to identify diabetics who underwent TAVR. We performed a propensity matching analysis comparing TF-TAVR versus TA-TAVR.
resultsThe analysis included 14.555 diabetics who underwent TAVR. After matching, in-hospital mortality was not different between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR. (3.5 vs. 4.4%, p = 0.11). TF-TAVR was associated with lower rates of cardiogenic shock (2.7 vs. 4.7%, p = 0.02), use of mechanical circulatory support (2.0 vs. 2.9%, p = 0.03), acute renal failure (17.8 vs. 26.5%, p < 0.001), major bleeding (35.8 vs. 40.7%, p < 0.001) and respiratory complications (1.1 vs. 4.4%, p < 0.001) compared with TA-TAVR. However, TF-TAVR was associated with a higher rate of vascular complications (2.9 vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001), cardiac tamponade (0.5 vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), complete heart block (10.8 vs. 7.7%, p < 0.001) and pacemaker insertion (11.8 vs. 8.3%, p < 0.001). There was no difference between both groups in acute stroke (1.8 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.39), hemodialysis (2.0 vs. 2.2%, p = 0.71), and ventricular arrhythmias (4.9 vs. 4.2%, p = 0.19). Notably, TF-TAVR was associated with higher mortality, acute stroke, AKI, hemodialysis, PCI, and respiratory complications in complicated diabetics compared with non-complicated diabetics.
conclusionsThis observational analysis showed no difference in-hospital mortality between TF-TAVR and TA-TAVR among diabetic patients. Studies exploring the optimal access for TAVR among diabetics are recommended.
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.