ReviewJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions
Early Surgery for Patients With Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Aortic Valve Replacement in Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Review
- Comparing Early Intervention to Watchful Waiting: A Review on Risk Stratification and Management in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Guidelines provide class I recommendations for aortic valve intervention for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) or reduced ejection fraction, but the cornerstone of management for asymptomatic patients has been watchful waiting. This is based on historical nonrandomized data, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have now been performed of early surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for asymptomatic severe AS. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs comparing early SAVR to watchful waiting for asymptomatic severe AS, focusing on individual end points of death and heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Methods: We systematically identified all RCTs comparing early SAVR to watchful waiting in patients with asymptomatic severe AS and synthesized the data in a random-effects meta-analysis. The prespecified primary end point was all-cause mortality. Results: Two trials randomizing 302 patients were included. Early SAVR lead to a 55% reduction in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.85; Conclusions: In patients with severe asymptomatic AS and normal ejection fraction, early SAVR reduces death and HF hospitalization compared to initial conservative management. This challenges current treatment standards and has implications for the clinical care of these patients and for guidelines.
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.