ReviewCureus2022
Transaxillary Versus Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in the Treatment of Aortic Stenosis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a technique that can be performed through multiple approaches, and the benefits of one approach over another are still being evaluated to make sure patients receive the best possible care. Our meta-analysis aims to compare clinical and procedural outcomes of the transaxillary (TAx) and transaortic (TAo) approaches to validate the more optimal procedure. The systematic literature search was done via PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central databases from inception to December 2021, to identify articles reporting data on both TAx TAVR and TAo TAVR. In addition, we checked ClinicalTrials.gov for more published or unpublished trials. Baseline patient characteristics, procedure results, and clinical results were extracted from the article and pooled for analysis. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3 (Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The outcomes extracted included blood transfusion, conversion to sternotomy, tamponade, contrast amount, procedure time, bleeding incidents (minor, major, or life-threatening), length of stay (LOS), vascular complications (minor or major), acute kidney injury (AKI), paravalvular leak (PVL), permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation, 30-day mortality, one-year mortality, 30-day stroke, and device success. The final analysis included 11 articles, consisting of 10 observational studies and a pivotal trial. Cumulative results revealed that the TAo approach had a significantly lower incidence of vascular complications (RR = 2.30; 95% CI = 1.22 to 4.35), and the need for implantation of a permanent pacemaker (RR = 1.82; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.54) along with a lower amount of contrast (mean difference (MD) = 27.40; 95% CI = 3.73 to 51.08) needed to be used. The TAx group was associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality (RR = 0.46; 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.69), AKI (RR = 0.47; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.67), and length of hospital stay (MD = -1.95; 95% CI = -2.51 to -1.38). No significant difference was observed between the outcomes of 30-day stroke (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 0.81 to 2.33), PVL (RR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.50 to 2.18), tamponade (RR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.12 to 4.03), conversion to sternotomy (RR = 0.51; 95% CI = 0.06 to 4.30), device success (RR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.07), the incidence of bleeding (RR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.51 to 1.10), and procedure time (MD = 4.44; 95% CI = -96.30 to 105.17). Both the procedures were associated with their benefits and risks. Although most of the outcomes favored TAx transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), it is too early to say if it would be better than TAo TAVI. To authenticate the findings concluded in this meta-analysis and further improve our understanding of the efficacy, safety, and risk profile between TAx and TAo approaches for TAVI, large sample randomized clinical trials are required on a wide scale.
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.