ArticleThe American journal of cardiology2024
Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Versus Balloon-Expandable Valves for Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.
Article in The American journal of cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical impact of initial surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve size on mid-term outcomes of transcatheter valve-in-valve in Japanese patients.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative outcomes of balloon-expandable versus self-expanding transcatheter aortic valves: insights from a large-scale German registry.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Escalating Diameter Buddy Balloon in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation With Complex Aortic Arch.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves in Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Does Valve Type Matter?Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Supra-Annular Versus Intra-Annular Devices for Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Replacement: The PANDORA International Registry.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Intra-Annular Versus Supra-Annular Self-Expanding Valves for Valve-in-Valve TAVR.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Changes in patient characteristics and procedural measures over a 10-year period in aortic valve-in-valve procedures for degenerated surgical bioprostheses.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Self-expanding (SE) and balloon-expandable (BE) transcatheter heart valves (THVs) have not been extensively studied in valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We compared outcomes of supra-annular SE and BE THVs used for ViV-TAVR through a retrospective analysis of institutional data (2013 to 2023) including all patients who underwent ViV-TAVR (TAVR in previous surgical aortic valve replacement). Unmatched and propensity-matched (1:1) comparisons of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes were undertaken in SE and BE THVs along with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. A total of 315 patients who underwent ViV-TAVR were included, of whom 73% received an SE THV. Median age was 77 years, and women comprised 42.5% of the population. Propensity-score matching (1:1) yielded 81 matched pairs. Implanted aortic valve size was comparable in the groups (23 mm [23 to 26] vs 23 mm [23 to 26], p = 0.457). At 30 days after ViV-TAVR, the SE group had a lower mean aortic valve gradient (14 mm Hg [11 to 18] vs 17.5 mm Hg [13 to 25], p = 0.007). A greater number of patients with BE THV had severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (16% vs 6.2%, p = 0.04). At 1-year follow-up, the SE THV group had a lower aortic valve gradient (14.0 mm Hg [9.6 to 19] vs 17 mm Hg [13 to 25], p = 0.04) than that of the BE THV group; 30-day mortality was 2.7%, whereas 1-year mortality was 7.5% and comparable in the groups. Survival and stroke incidence were similar in the groups up to 5 years. In conclusion, SE and BE THVs had comparable survival after ViV-TAVR. The higher residual aortic valve gradients in BE THVs are likely due to valve design and warrant long-term evaluation for potential structural valve degeneration.
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.