Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34136565›Full record

SynthesisBioMed research international2021

Percutaneous versus Surgical Intervention for Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review.

Adelaide Iervolino, Sanjeet Singh Avtaar Singh, Pierluigi Nappi, Francesca Bellomo, Francesco Nappi

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BioMed research international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Adelaide IervolinoDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCSS, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3208-4689
Sanjeet Singh Avtaar SinghDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Golden Jubilee National Hospital, Glasgow, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4320-0734
Pierluigi NappiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Italy.
Francesca BellomoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Messina, Italy.
Francesco NappiDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Centre Cardiologique du Nord de Saint-Denis, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9705-5360
University of Messina · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITCentre Cardiologique du Nord · FRGolden Jubilee National Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aortic stenosis is a disease that is increasing in prevalence and manifests as decreased cardiac output, which if left untreated can result in heart failure and ultimately death. It is primarily a disease of the elderly who often have multiple comorbidities. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve therapies has changed the way we treat these conditions. However, long-term results of these therapies remain uncertain. Recently, there has been an increasing number of studies examining the role of both surgical aortic valve replacement and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We therefore performed a systematic review using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two investigators searched papers published between January 1, 2007, and to date using the following terms: "aortic valve stenosis," "aortic valve operation," and "transcatheter aortic valve therapy." Both strategies in aortic stenosis treatment highlighted specific indications alongside the pitfalls such as structural valve degeneration and valve thrombosis which have a bearing on clinical outcomes. We propose some recommendations to help clinicians in the decision-making process as technological improvements make both surgical and transcatheter therapies viable options for patients with aortic stenosis. Finally, we assess the role of finite element analysis in patient selection for aortic valve replacement. THVT and AVR-S are both useful tools in the armamentarium against aortic stenosis. The decision between the two treatment strategies should be best guided by a strong robust evidence base, ideally with a long-term follow-up. This is best performed by the heart team with the patient as the center of the discussion.

Indexed as

AgedAortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisComorbidityDecision MakingFibrinolytic AgentsHeart Valve ProsthesisHumansPercutaneous Coronary InterventionRisk FactorsThrombosisTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementFibrinolytic Agents

Identifiers

PMID34136565
PMCPMC8175165
OpenAlexW3165823418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.