ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid vs. Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis among Patients at Low Surgical Risk in China: From the Multicenter National NTCVR Database.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Noncoronary Sinus Pivot Implantation for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Self-Expanding Valve for Aortic Regurgitation.JACC. Asia · 2025Article
- Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in China - a review of the available evidence.AsiaIntervention · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with self-expandable valves for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis patients who are at low surgical risk.
methodsParticipants were enrolled from 36 centers in China between January 2017 and December 2021. The primary endpoint event was all-cause mortality and all stroke at 30 days.
resultsAmong 389 patients at low surgical risk that underwent TAVR, 229 patients were BAV stenosis (mean age, 72.9 years; 65.1% men). There was no significant difference in the rate of all-cause death between two populations at 30 days. However, the rate of all stroke was significantly higher in the BAV group at 30 days (3.3% vs. 0%; odds ratio (OR), 0.97 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.94 to 0.99);
conclusionsIn this national registry-based study, patients treated for BAV vs. TAV stenosis had no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days, but trans-carotid access was associated with a higher all stroke rate after TAVR at 30 days.
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.