ArticleEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2022
Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with morbid obesity: a multicentre propensity score-matched analysis.
Article in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comprehensive analysis of acute kidney injury incidence following transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 13,777 patients.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a high-risk patient with critical aortic stenosis and severe valve calcification.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement for High-Risk Populations: Transaxillary Access Enhances Survival in Patients with Obesity.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Obesity and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in severely obese patients?EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 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
38 authors at 14 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMorbidly obese (MO) patients are increasingly undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the best therapeutic strategy for these patients remains a matter for debate.
aimsOur aim was to compare the periprocedural and mid-term outcomes in MO patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR.
methodsA multicentre retrospective study including consecutive MO patients (body mass index ≥40 kg/m
resultsAfter matching, periprocedural complications, including blood transfusion (14.1% versus 48.1%; p<0.001), stage 2-3 acute kidney injury (3.99% versus 10.1%; p=0.002), hospital-acquired pneumonia (1.7% versus 5.8%; p=0.005) and access site infection (1.5% versus 5.5%; p=0.013), were more common in the SAVR group, as was moderate to severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM; 9.9% versus 39.4%; p<0.001). TAVR patients more frequently required permanent pacemaker implantation (14.4% versus 5.6%; p<0.001) and had higher rates of ≥moderate residual aortic regurgitation (3.3% versus 0%; p=0.001). SAVR was an independent predictor of moderate to severe PPM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-2.59; p=0.002), while TAVR was not. In-hospital mortality was not different between groups (3.9% for TAVR versus 6.1% for SAVR; p=0.171). Two-year outcomes (including all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and readmissions) were similar in both groups (log-rank p>0.05 for all comparisons). Predictors of all-cause 2-year mortality differed between the groups; moderate to severe PPM was a predictor following SAVR (HR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.10-2.88; p=0.018) but not following TAVR (p=0.737).
conclusionsSAVR and TAVR offer similar mid-term outcomes in MO patients with severe AS, however, TAVR offers some advantages in terms of periprocedural morbidity.
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.