SynthesisClinical cardiology2020
Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcatheter vs surgical aortic valve replacement in low to intermediate surgical risk aortic stenosis patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clinical cardiology · 2020Pooled it
- The evolution of TAVI performance overtime: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Review
- Transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valves: an updated meta-analysis.The British journal of cardiology · 2024Article
- Evolving technology: the TRIFLO tri-leaflet mechanical valve without oral anticoagulation: a potential major innovation in valve surgery.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Prosthetic Valve Function after Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Aortic Stenosis by Transcatheter Procedure versus Surgery.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is regarded as the most superior alternative treatment approach for patients with aortic stenosis (AS) who are associated with high surgical risk, whereas the effectiveness of TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients remained inconclusive. This study aimed to determine the best treatment strategies for AS with low to intermediate surgical risk based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). HYPOTHESIS AND
methodsRCTs that compared TAVR vs SAVR in AS patients with low to intermediate surgical risk were identified by PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane library from inception till April 2019. The pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the data collected using random-effects models.
resultsSeven RCTs with a total of 6929 AS patients were enrolled. We noted that TAVR significantly increased the risk of transient ischemic attack (TIA) (RR: 1.43; 95%CI: 1.04-1.96; P = .029), and permanent pacemaker implantation (RR: 3.00; 95%CI: 1.70-5.30; P < .001). However, TAVR was associated with lower risk of post-procedural bleeding (RR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.33-0.98; P = .042), new-onset or worsening of atrial fibrillation (RR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.23-0.45; P < .001), acute kidney injury (RR: 0.40; 95%CI: 0.25-0.63; P < .001), and cardiogenic shock (RR: 0.34; 95%CI: 0.19-0.59; P < .001). The risk of aortic-valve reintervention at 1- (RR: 2.63; 95%CI: 1.34-5.15; P = .005), and 2 years (RR: 3.19; 95%CI: 1.63-6.24; P = .001) in low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR was significantly increased than those who received SAVR.
conclusionsThese findings indicated that low to intermediate surgical risk patients who received TAVR had low risk of complications, whereas the risk of TIA, permanent pacemaker implantation, and aortic-valve reintervention was increased.
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.