SynthesisCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2022
Clinical outcomes in nonagenarians undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health and Social Care Interventions in the 80 years Old and Over Population: An Evidence and Gap Map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Prognostic performance of clinical scores and biomarkers in nonagenarians after TAVR requiring ICU admission.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Impact of periprocedural bleeding on mid-term outcome in nonagenarians who underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation: insights from LAPLACE registry.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023Article
- Aortic Stenosis Phenotypes and Precision Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the risk of procedural complications and mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in nonagenarians (age ≥ 90 years) compared to younger patients (< 90 years). Although TAVI could be considered as a treatment option in nonagenarians, several previous studies have shown conflicting outcomes between nonagenarians and younger patients who underwent TAVI. We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed and EMBASE to investigate the clinical outcomes of nonagenarians after TAVI. The outcomes of interest were short- and long-term mortality and procedural complications. Our study identified 16 observational studies including a total of 179,565 patients (21,674 nonagenarian patients and 157,891 younger patients. Nonagenarians had a significantly higher rate of short- (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.48, 1.38-1.59; P < 0.001) and long-term mortality (HR, 95% CI: 1.34, 1.24-1.44; P < 0.001) than younger patients after TAVI. Furthermore, there were significant differences in major and/or life-threatening bleeding (risk ratio [RR], 95% CI: 1.21, 1.05-1.39; P = 0.008), stroke (HR, 95% CI: 1.24, 1.11-1.40; P < 0.001), and major vascular complication (RR, 95% CI: 2.15, 1.35-3.42; P = 0.001) between nonagenarians and younger patients after TAVI. Minor vascular complication, myocardial infarction and permanent pacemaker implantation rate were similar between the two groups. Nonagenarians had significantly higher rate of short- and long-term mortality, major and/or life-threatening bleeding, stroke, and major vascular complication after TAVI. Although TAVI is a treatment option in nonagenarians, careful and appropriate selection of patients is essential to improve clinical outcomes.
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.