ReviewCardio-oncology (London, England)2024
Outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement in cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Cardio-oncology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Implications of TAVR in Patients With Active Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2025Pooled it
- Radiation-associated bioprosthetic valve dysfunction: an initial case-control analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- TAVR in cancer patients: outcomes in survivors with radiation and active cancer.Cardio-oncology (London, England) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical outcomes for TAVR in cancer survivors with prior chest radiation therapy (C-XRT) who develop symptomatic aortic-valve stenosis are not adequately assessed in major clinical trials leading to conflicting results. Hence, we conducted this meta-analysis to evaluate the, safety, efficacy, and mortality outcomes of cancer survivors with prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR. MEDLINE and Scopus were searched up to March 2024. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing severe aortic stenosis patients with and without prior C-XRT undergoing TAVR with at least one outcome of interest were shortlisted. Data were analyzed using random-effects model to derive weighted mean differences, and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Six studies with 6,191 patients (278 C-XRT and 5,913 no-C-XRT) were included. All-cause mortality at 30-day (RR 1.63, p = 0.12) and 1-year interval (RR 1.59, p = 0.08) showed no significant differences with prior C-XRT versus no-C-XRT. Worsening CHF was the only post-procedural safety outcome significantly higher in patients with prior C-XRT (RR 1.98, p = 0.0004) versus no- C-XRT. The efficacy end-points i.e., improvement in LVEF (MD 1.24; -0.50, 2.98), and aortic valve gradient (MD -0.63; -1.32, 0.05) were not significantly different. TAVR has similar all-cause mortality, efficacy and safety (except CHF worsening) among cancer survivors with and without a prior history of C-XRT.
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.