ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Transcatheter versus Isolated Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Young High-Risk Patients: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effect of general anesthesia on postoperative outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Longer-term and landmark analysis of transcatheter vs. surgical aortic-valve implantation in severe aortic stenosis: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Saudi Heart Association/National Heart Center/Saudi Arabian Cardiac Interventional Society/Saudi Society for Cardiac Surgeons/Saudi Cardiac Imaging Group 2023 TAVI Guidelines.Journal of the Saudi Heart Association · 2024Article
- The Heart in the Transcatheter Intervention Era: Where Are We?Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- A retrospective study on the trends in surgical aortic valve replacement outcomes in the post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement era.Health science reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundYounger patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis are a particularly challenging collective with regard to the choice of intervention. High-risk patients younger than 75 years of age are often eligible for both the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and the isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (iSAVR). Data on the outcomes of both interventions in this set of patients are scarce.
methodsOne hundred and forty-four propensity score-matched patients aged 75 years or less who underwent TAVR or iSAVR at the Hietzing Heart Center in Vienna, Austria, were included in the study. The mean age was 68.9 years (TAVR 68.7 vs. SAVR 67.6 years;
resultsPostprocedural adverse event data showed higher rates of newly acquired atrial fibrillation (6.9% vs. 19.4%;
conclusionAlthough the survival analysis revealed a higher in-hospital and 30-day survival rate for high-risk patients aged ≤75 years who underwent TAVR, iSAVR was associated with a significantly higher long-term survival rate.
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.