SynthesisHeart (British Cardiac Society)2021
Patient values and preferences on valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Heart (British Cardiac Society), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Values and preferences of patients with inborn errors of immunity and their caregivers: a systematic review.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Health-related quality of life following TAVI or cardiac surgery in patients at intermediate and low risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2023Pooled it
- Less Symptom Improvement in Patients Undergoing TAVI With Concomitant COPD, Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Do patients' and doctors' perceptions about cardiovascular outcomes coincide? A one-to-one survey at in-hospital and outpatient level.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Redo-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Procedural Optimization and Patient Selection: From Bench to Clinical Practice.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comparing Early Intervention to Watchful Waiting: A Review on Risk Stratification and Management in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Shared Decision-Making in Severe Aortic Stenosis: Experiences and Needs of Older Patients.The Journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2025Article
- Regional assessment of availability for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in Sweden: a long-term observational study.European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2024Observational
- Article
- Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Implantation for Degenerated Mitral or Tricuspid Bioprosthetic Valves: A Heath Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2020Article
- Understanding Treatment Preferences for Patients with Tricuspid Regurgitation.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The review aims to summarise evidence addressing patients' values, preferences and practical issues on deciding between transcatheter aortic valve insertion (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. We searched databases and grey literature until June 2020. We included studies of adults with aortic stenosis eliciting values and preferences about treatment, excluding medical management or palliative care. Qualitative findings were synthesised using thematic analysis, and quantitative findings were narratively described. Evidence certainty was assessed using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We included eight studies. Findings ranged from low to very low certainty. Most studies only addressed TAVI. Studies addressing both TAVI and SAVR reported on factors affecting patients' decision-making along with treatment effectiveness, instead of trade-offs between procedures. Willingness to accept risk varied considerably. To improve their health status, participants were willing to accept higher mortality risk than current evidence suggests for either procedure. No study explicitly addressed valve reintervention, and one study reported variability in willingness to accept shorter duration of known effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR. The most common themes were desire for symptom relief and improved function. Participants preferred minimally invasive procedures with shorter hospital stay and recovery. The current body of evidence on patients' values, preferences and practical issues related to aortic stenosis management is of suboptimal rigour and reports widely disparate results regarding patients' perceptions. These findings emphasise the need for higher quality studies to inform clinical practice guidelines and the central importance of shared decision-making to individualise care fitted to each patient.
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.