ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Sutureless and Rapid Deployment vs. Transcatheter Valves for Aortic Stenosis in Low-Risk Patients: Mid-Term Results.
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 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Sutureless versus transcatheter valves for the treatment of aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
- Transcatheter Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Rapid-Deployment Valves: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement over TAVI: a real-world retrospective cohort study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Operation in the gray zone: is SAVR still useful in patients aged between 75 and 80 years?Future cardiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent trials showed that TAVI is neither inferior nor superior to surgical aortic valve replacement. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Valves (SuRD-AVR) when compared to TAVI in low surgical risk patients with isolated aortic stenosis.
methodsData from five European Centers were retrospectively collected. We included 1306 consecutive patients at low surgical risk (EUROSCORE II < 4) who underwent aortic valve replacement by means of SuRD-AVR (n = 636) or TAVI (n = 670) from 2014 to 2019. A 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity-score was performed, and two balanced groups of 346 patients each were obtained. The primary endpoints of the study were: 30-day mortality and 5-year overall survival. The secondary endpoint was 5-year survival freedom from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs).
resultsThirty-day mortality was similar between the two groups (SuRD-AVR:1.7%, TAVI:2.0%,
conclusionsTAVI patients had a significantly lower five-year survival and survival freedom from MACCEs with a higher rate of PPI and PVL ≥ 2 when compared to SuRD-AVR.
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.