ArticleOpen heart2024
Role of aortic valve replacement in moderate aortic stenosis: a 10-year outcomes study.
Article in Open heart, 2024. 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.
- Clinical, Echocardiographic, and Socioeconomic Predictors of Progression and Outcomes in Patients With Moderate Aortic Stenosis.Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Early Aortic Valve Replacement in Moderate Aortic Stenosis.JACC. Advances · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivePatients with moderate aortic stenosis (AS) exhibit high morbidity and mortality. Limited evidence exists on the role of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this patient population. To investigate the benefit of AVR in moderate AS on survival and left ventricular function.
methodsIn a retrospective cohort study, patients with moderate AS between 2008 and 2016 were selected from the Cleveland Clinic echocardiography database and followed until 2018. Patients were classified as receiving AVR or managed medically (clinical surveillance). All-cause and cardiovascular mortality were assessed by survival analyses. Temporal haemodynamic and structural changes were assessed with longitudinal analyses using linear mixed effects models.
resultsWe included 1421 patients (mean age, 75.3±5.4 years and 39.9% women) followed over a median duration of 6 years. Patients in the AVR group had lower risk of all-cause (adjusted HR (aHR)=0.51, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.77; p=0.001) and cardiovascular mortality (aHR=0.50, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.80; p=0.004) compared with those in the clinical surveillance group irrespective of sex, receipt of other open-heart surgeries and underlying malignancy. These findings were seen only in those with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%. Further, patients in the AVR group had a significant trend towards an increase in LVEF and a decrease in right ventricular systolic pressure compared with those in the clinical surveillance group.
conclusionsIn patients with moderate AS, AVR was associated with favourable clinical outcomes and left ventricular remodelling.
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.