ReviewEuropean cardiology2022
Treatment of Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: Impact of Patient Sex and Life Expectancy on Treatment Choice.
Review in European cardiology, 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.
- Current status and challenges of multi-omics research using animal models of atherosclerosis.Journal of molecular and cellular cardiology plus · 2025Review
- An Analysis of Early Results after Valve Replacement in Isolated Aortic Valve Stenosis by Using Sutureless vs. Stented Bioprostheses: A Single-Center Middle-Income Country Experience.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Time to Integrate Sex in Management of Aortic Valve Stenosis.European cardiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In adults with severe aortic stenosis, sex and age differences in symptoms and diagnosis may lead to delays in intervention. Choice of intervention partly depends on expected longevity because bioprosthetic valves have limited durability, particularly in younger patients. Current guidelines recommend the following: a mechanical valve in younger adults (aged <50 years) if lifelong anticoagulation is possible and acceptable and a valve-sparing procedure is not possible; surgical mechanical or bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in adults aged 50-65 years; and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for those aged >80 years based on lower mortality and morbidity compared to SAVR and adequate valve durability. For patients aged 65-80 years, the choice between TAVI and a bioprosthetic SAVR depends on expected longevity, which is greater in women than men, as well as associated cardiac and noncardiac conditions, valvular and vascular anatomy, estimated risk of SAVR versus TAVI and expected complications and patient preferences.
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.