ArticleCardiology and therapy2022
Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Benefit from SAVR with Surgical Ablation Compared to TAVR Alone.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebrovascular Events in Aortic Stenosis: From Native Valve Disease to TAVR-Specific Risk and Prevention.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Concomitant Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.CJC open · 2025Review
- What Are SAVR Indications in the TAVI Era?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Atrial Fibrillation Management During Surgical vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- The Evolving Role of Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Valvular Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn patients with preoperative atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing aortic valve replacement, the addition of surgical ablation to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR-SA) is efficacious and a Class I guideline. We hypothesized that this subgroup may benefit from SAVR-SA compared to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) alone.
methodsMedicare beneficiaries with persistent non-valvular AF who underwent SAVR-SA or TAVR alone between 2012 and 2018 were included. Patients with high-risk surgical comorbidities were excluded. Groups were matched using inverse probability weighting. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were stroke, transient ischemic attack, permanent pacemaker implantation, bleeding, rehospitalization for atrial arrhythmias, and rehospitalization for heart failure. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional-hazards regression were used to compare outcomes. Outcomes were adjusted for variables with a standardized mean difference greater than 0.1.
resultsOf 439,492 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement, 2591 underwent SAVR-SA and 1494 underwent TAVR alone. Weighting resulted in adequately matched groups. Compared to TAVR alone, SAVR-SA was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.79), permanent pacemaker implantation (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87), bleeding (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.39-1.00), and rehospitalization for heart failure (HR 0.49 (0.36-0.65). There was no difference in the incidence of stroke (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.74-1.54), transient ischemic attack (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.75-1.47), or rehospitalization for atrial arrhythmia.
conclusionSelect patients with persistent non-valvular AF may benefit from SAVR-SA compared to TAVR alone.
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.