Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33563630›Full record

SynthesisHeart (British Cardiac Society)2021

Patient values and preferences on valve replacement for aortic stenosis: a systematic review.

Anja Fog Heen, Lyubov Lytvyn, Michael Shapiro, Gordon Henry Guyatt, Reed Alexander Cunningham Siemieniuk, Yuan Zhang, Veena Manja, Per Olav Vandvik, Thomas Agoritsas

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anja Fog Heen *Department of Medicine, Innlandet Hospital Trust Gjøvik Hospital, Brumunddal, Norway anjaheen@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8873-7028
Lyubov Lytvyn *Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Michael ShapiroChicago, Illinois, USA.
Gordon Henry GuyattDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Reed Alexander Cunningham SiemieniukDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Yuan ZhangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Veena ManjaDepartment of Surgery, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Per Olav VandvikInstitute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Thomas AgoritsasDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University Faculty of Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Aortic Valve StenosisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationPatient PreferenceTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementDecision MakingHumansQuality-Adjusted Life YearsRisk AdjustmentTreatment Outcomeaortic valve stenosisheart valve prosthesis implantationquality of health caretranscatheter aortic valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID33563630
PMCPMC8327404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.