ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2021
Comparison of the Sapien 3 versus the ACURATE neo valve system: A propensity score analysis.
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex-based differences in outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Open heart · 2026Pooled it
- Woven solutions for tissue engineering: Next-generation heart valves from fiber to function.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Comparing outcomes of balloon-expandable vs. self-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2024Review
- Comparison of the Sapien 3 versus the ACURATE neo valve system: A propensity score analysis.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the outcomes of transfemoral ACURATE neo (NEO) and Sapien 3 (S3) patients in terms of device success and clinical safety outcomes using a propensity score analysis.
backgroundDifferences in clinical outcomes between the latest-generation balloon-expandable S3 and self-expanding NEO in a "real-world transfemoral TAVI population" are still unclear.
methodsWe compared up to 6 months clinical outcomes using a propensity score analysis (inverse probability of treatment weighting [IPTW]) to account for differences in baseline characteristics.
resultsA total of 345 patients underwent transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with either NEO or S3 at two centers in the Netherlands. Composite device success and early safety endpoints were comparable between NEO and S3 (Device success: IPTW-adjusted OR: 0.35 [95% CI: 0.12-1.18], and early safety: IPTW-adjusted OR: 0.51 [95% CI: 0.19-1.38]). Six-months mortality was 5.3 versus 3.6%, stroke was 2.8 versus 3.3%, and pacemaker rate was 6.1 versus 8.6%, respectively with p = NS. Mean aortic gradient was lower in the NEO group (5.72 ± 2.47 vs. 9.05 ± 3.48; p = <.001), with a comparable rate of moderate or severe paravalvular leak (0 versus 2.1%; p = NS).
conclusionsDevice success and clinical safety outcomes were comparable for both valves. Up to 6-months follow-up clinical outcomes and mortality rate remained excellent. Mean aortic gradient was lower after ACURATE neo implantation.
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.