ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Comparing outcomes of balloon-expandable vs. self-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Myval versus Contemporary Valves in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- Short-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Clinical cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- Initial Experience With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in Nicaragua.Cureus · 2026Article
- Racial disparities in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A contemporary nationwide analysis.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common heart condition categorized into congenital and acquired forms. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an innovative method for AS management, and two valve types, self-expanding valves (SEV) and balloon-expandable valves (BEV), are used in TAVR. The objective of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes associated with balloon-expandable and self-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Methods: The researchers conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines and AMSTAR-2 tool. The methodology involved a systematic literature search, strict eligibility criteria, unbiased study selection, meticulous data extraction, quality assessment, and rigorous statistical analysis. Results: Our analysis included twenty-six papers and 26 553 patients. BEV exhibited significant advantages over SEV in overall mortality across 21 studies, particularly in perioperative and 30-day assessments. However, no substantial disparities emerged between the two valve types in stroke incidence. BEV demonstrated notable benefits in reducing hospitalization rates across 6 studies and significantly fewer instances of permanent pacemaker implantations across 19 studies, particularly evident in the perioperative setting. Other secondary outcomes like bleeding, acute kidney injury, and myocardial infarction showcased non-significant differences between BEV and SEV. Conclusion: The analysis indicates that BEV may offer benefits in specific aspects of TAVR outcomes, but further research is needed to fully understand the factors influencing patient outcomes and mortality in TAVR procedures.
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.