ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Impact of different guidewires on the implantation depth using the largest self-expandable TAVI device.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cerebrovascular Accident Risk and Guidewire Choice in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Procedure.Cureus · 2026Article
- Impact of Accidental High or Low Implantation Depth on Peri-Procedural Outcomes after Implantation with the Self-Expanding ACURATE neo2.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Factors Influencing Implantation Depth During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 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
18 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The deployment process of the largest self-expandable device (STHV-34) during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) might be challenging due to stabilization issues. Whether the use of different TAVI-guidewires impact the procedural success and outcome is not well-known. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the impact of non-Lunderquist (NLu) vs. the Lunderquist (Lu) guidewires during TAVI using the STHV-34 on the procedural and 30-day outcomes. Methods: The primary study endpoint was defined as the final implantation depth (ID) depending on the selected guidewire strategy. Key secondary endpoints included VARC-3-defined complications. Results: The study cohort included 398 patients of four tertiary care institutions, of whom 79.6% (317/398) had undergone TAVI using NLu and 20.4% (81/398) using Lu guidewires. Baseline characteristics did not substantially differ between NLu and Lu patients. The average ID was higher in the Lu cohort (NLu vs. Lu: -5.2 [-7.0-(-3.5)] vs. -4.5 [-6.0-(-3.0)]; Conclusion: The use of the Lunderquist
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.