ArticleKorean circulation journal2024
Comparison of Intracardiac Echocardiography Versus Transesophageal Echocardiography for Guidance During Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intraprocedural echocardiographic guidance in transcatheter aortic valve implantation.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Functional Materials for ICE and IVUS Piezoelectric Transducers: A Review.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Intracardiac Echocardiography Guided Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patient Ineligible for Standard Echocardiography.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Adjunctive Imaging for Optimal Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.Korean circulation journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEvidence regarding the efficacy and safety of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) for guidance during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is limited. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of ICE versus transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for guiding TAVR.
methodsThis prospective cohort study included patients who underwent TAVR from August 18, 2015, to June 31, 2021. Eligible patients were stratified by echocardiographic modality (ICE or TEE) and anesthesia mode (monitored anesthesia care [MAC] or general anesthesia [GA]). Primary outcome was the 1-year composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for cardiovascular cause, or stroke, according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-3 (VARC-3) definition. Propensity score matching was performed, and study outcomes were analyzed for the matched cohorts.
resultsOf the 359 eligible patients, 120 patients were matched for the ICE-MAC and TEE-GA groups, respectively. The incidence of primary outcome was similar between matched groups (18.3% vs. 20.0%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.68; p=0.843). ICE-MAC and TEE-GA also had similar incidences of moderate-to-severe paravalvular regurgitation (PVR) (4.2% vs. 5.0%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.23-2.82; p=0.758), new permanent pacemaker implantation, and VARC-3 types 2-4 bleeding.
conclusionsICE was comparable to TEE for guidance during TAVR for the composite clinical efficacy outcome, with similar incidences of moderate-to-severe PVR, new permanent pacemaker implantation, and major bleeding. These results suggest that ICE could be a safe and effective alternative echocardiographic modality to TEE for guiding TAVR.
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.