ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Multi-Center Comparison of Two Self-Expanding Transcatheter Heart Valves: A Propensity Matched Analysis.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical evaluation of the Hydra self-expanding THV: 30-day results from the GENESIS-II study.AsiaIntervention · 2025Article
- Valve Hemodynamics by Valve Size and 1-Year Survival Following Implantation of the Portico Valve in the Multicenter CONFIDENCE Registry.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2024Article
- Comparison of the New-Generation Self-Expanding NAVITOR Transcatheter Heart Valve with Its Predecessor, the PORTICO, in Severe Native Aortic Valve Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Device Selection for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDuring the last years, several transcatheter aortic heart valves entered the clinical market and are commercially available. The prostheses differ regarding several technical and functional aspects. However, little is known regarding head-to-head comparative data of the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO valve prostheses.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare two self-expanding transcatheter aortic heart valves (THV), the ACURATE neo and the PORTICO, with regard to in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, as well as early device failures.
methodsA total of 1591 consecutive patients with severe native aortic valve stenosis from two centers were included in the analyses and matched by 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to identify one patient treated with PORTICO (
resultsIn-hospital complications were comparable between both valves, including any kind of stroke (ACURATE neo = 3.5% vs. PORTICO = 3.8%;
conclusionsIn this two-center case-matched comparison, short-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes showed comparable results between PORTICO and ACURATE neo prostheses. However, PORTICO was associated with a significant higher incidence of PPI.
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.