Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34373997›Full record

ArticleNetherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation2022

Report on outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation and redo surgical aortic valve replacement in the Netherlands.

G J van Steenbergen, B van Straten, K Y Lam, D van Veghel, L Dekker, P A Tonino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

6 authors.

G J van SteenbergenCatharina Heart Centre, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. gijs.v.steenbergen@catharinaziekenhuis.nl.
B van StratenCatharina Heart Centre, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
K Y LamCatharina Heart Centre, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
D van VeghelCatharina Heart Centre, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
L DekkerCatharina Heart Centre, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
P A ToninoCatharina Heart Centre, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe sought to investigate real-world outcomes of patients with degenerated biological aortic valve prostheses who had undergone valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) or reoperative surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) in the Netherlands.

methodsPatients who had undergone ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR for a degenerated biological aortic valve prosthesis in the Netherlands between January 2014 and December 2018 were eligible for this retrospective study. Patients with a prior homograft, active endocarditis or mechanical aortic valve prosthesis were excluded. Patients were matched using the propensity score. The primary endpoint was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and in-hospital postoperative stroke. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality at different time points, in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year. Baseline characteristics and outcome data were collected from the Netherlands Heart Registration.

resultsFrom 16 cardiac centres, 653 patients were included in the study (374 ViV-TAVI and 279 redo-SAVR). European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I (EuroSCORE I) was higher in ViV-TAVI patients (19.4, interquartile range (IQR) 13.3-27.9 vs 13.8, IQR 8.3-21.9, p < 0.01). After propensity score matching, 165 patients were matched with acceptable covariate balance. In the matched cohorts, the primary endpoint was not significantly different for ViV-TAVI and redo-SAVR patients (odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.02). Procedural, 30-day and 1‑year all-cause mortality rates, incidence of in-hospital postoperative stroke, pacemaker implantation and redo procedures within one year were also similar between cohorts.

conclusionPatients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses treated with ViV-TAVI or redo-SAVR have similar mortality and morbidity.

Indexed as

CardiologyCardiothoracic surgeryReal-world outcomesRedo-SAVRViV-TAVI

Identifiers

PMID34373997
PMCPMC8799804

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.