ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Clinical outcomes and cumulative healthcare costs of TAVR vs. SAVR in Asia.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- International Age and Use Criteria for Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Taiwan Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (TATCS) Position Statement: Surgeon's Role in the Present Era of Isolated Severe Aortic Stenosis Patient Management.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Recent progress in functional modification and crosslinking of bioprosthetic heart valves.Regenerative biomaterials · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study compared transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in terms of short- and long-term effectiveness. Methods: This retrospective cohort study based on nationwide National Health Insurance claims data and Cause of Death data focused on adult patients ( Results: After weighting, the mean age of the patients was 77.98 ± 5.86 years in the TAVR group and 77.98 ± 2.55 years in the SAVR group. More than half of the patients were female (53.94%). The incidence of negative outcomes was lower in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group, including 1-year ACM (11.39 vs. 17.98%) and 3-year ACM (15.77 vs. 23.85%). The risk of ACM was lower in the TAVR group (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.44-0.84]; Conclusion: In this real-world cohort of patients with aortic stenosis, TAVR proved superior to SAVR in terms of clinical outcomes and survival with comparable medical utilization after the procedure.
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.