Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32166571›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2020

Mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement: an updated meta-analysis of randomised trials.

H Takagi, Y Hari, K Nakashima, T Kuno, T Ando, ALICE (All-Literature Investigation of Cardiovascular Evidence) Group

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Meta-analysis of randomised trials compares mortality after transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2020
    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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

H TakagiDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shizuoka Medical Center, Shizuoka, Japan. kfgth973@ybb.ne.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5594-8072
Y HariDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shizuoka Medical Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
K NakashimaDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Shizuoka Medical Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
T KunoDepartment of Medicine, Mount Sinai Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
T AndoDivision of Interventional Cardiology, Department of Cardiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
ALICE (All-Literature Investigation of Cardiovascular Evidence) Group
Shizuoka Medical Center · JPMount Sinai Beth Israel · USNewYork–Presbyterian Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo determine whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improves early (30-day) and midterm (1-year) mortality compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), we performed an updated meta-analysis of all the currently available randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

methodsTo identify all RCTs providing both 30-day and 1‑year mortality after TAVI versus SAVR, PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to and including July 2019. A risk difference (RD) and its 95% confidence interval were generated using data of prespecified outcomes in both the TAVI and SAVR groups. Study-specific estimates were pooled using inverse variance-weighted averages of RDs in the random-effects model.

resultsWe identified seven eligible high-quality RCTs including a total of 7631 as-treated patients. Pooled analyses demonstrated significantly lower 30-day (RD -0.60%; p = 0.046) and 1‑year all-cause mortality (RD -1.12%; p = 0.03) after TAVI than after SAVR. No funnel plot asymmetry was detected for 30-day and 1‑year mortality. Meta-regression analyses indicated that RDs of 30-day and 1‑year mortality between TAVI and SAVR were not modulated by mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. Bleeding complications at 30 days and 1 year and stage 2/3 acute kidney injury at 30 days were significantly less frequent after TAVI than after SAVR, whereas major vascular complications and new permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days and 1 year were significantly more frequent after TAVI than after SAVR.

conclusionThe best evidence from the present meta-analysis of all the currently available RCTs suggests that TAVI may reduce 30-day and 1‑year all-cause mortality compared with SAVR.

Indexed as

Meta-analysisRandomised controlled trialSurgical aortic valve replacementTranscatheter aortic valve implantation

Identifiers

PMID32166571
PMCPMC7270388
OpenAlexW3012046945

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.