Observational studyInnovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)
Minimally Invasive Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Retrospective Observational Single-Center Study in Japan.
Observational study in Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of TAVI vs Minimally Invasive SAVR for Low-Risk Aortic Stenosis in Japan.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Current Landscape in the Management of Aortic Stenosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MICS-AVR) versus transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) in Asian patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, observational, single-center study in Japan, including cases of MICS-AVR (
resultsThere were similar incidences of all-cause death, cardiac death, stroke and cerebral hemorrhage, and aortic valve reintervention between the 2 groups. However, the TF-TAVR cohort had a longer hospital length of stay and higher rates of significant PVL compared with the MICS-AVR cohort. Multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analyses revealed that heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.129, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.038 to 0.445,
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first comparative study of clinical outcomes in Asian patients undergoing MICS-AVR versus TF-TAVR, revealing that MICS-AVR could be a feasible and efficient alternative to TF-TAVR. Future larger-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the present results.
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.