ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2020
Comparison of latest generation supra-annular and intra-annular self-expanding transcatheter heart valves.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early safety and efficacy of intra-annular versus supra-annular self-expanding transcatheter heart valves.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Personalised Treatment in Aortic Stenosis: A Patient-Tailored Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Approach.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compares two latest-generation self-expanding transcatheter heart valves (THV), the supra-annular ACURATE neo (Boston Scientific) and the intra-annular Centera THV (Edwards Lifesciences).
methodsIn this single center observational cohort trial 317 patients treated with the ACURATE neo and 78 patients treated with the Centera TVH were included. The main endpoints were device success and the early safety endpoint at 30 days.
resultsBesides higher incidence of diabetes mellitus and higher body mass index in patients treated with the ACURATE neo THV, there were no baseline differences between the groups. Device success was similar in both groups (neo: 91.8%
conclusionsThe ACURATE neo and the Centera THV show low mortality rates as well as comparable, favorable hemodynamics. The finding of higher stroke rates at 30 days with the repositionable Centera SE-THV needs further assessment.
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.