ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Long-Term Durability of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses in Patients With Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Neural Network-Based Prediction of Residual Paravalvular Leak in Bicuspid Aortic Valve TAVI Using CT-Derived Anatomical Features.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- TAVI for Bicuspid Aortic Valve: Addressing Technical Challenges and Optimizing Outcomes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Management of Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis: Current Evidence and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Chromosomal Location and Identification ofDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, there is a lack of evidence for the long-term bioprosthetic valve durability of patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS AND
resultsThis study aimed to evaluate hemodynamic outcome, structural valve deterioration, and bioprosthetic valve failure during long-term follow-up after TAVR in patients with BAV versus patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). Patients with BAV and TAV who underwent TAVR between 2012 and 2020, with echocardiography followed for at least 3 years, were included. Baseline characteristics, long-term valve hemodynamic performance, structural valve deterioration, and bioprosthetic valve failure were compared between patients with BAV and TAV. A total of 170 patients with BAV and 145 patients with TAV were included. The mean duration of follow-up for patients with BAV and TAV was 5.2±1.8 and 5.0±1.7 years. No significant differences were observed in the rates of structural valve deterioration and bioprosthetic valve failure between patients with BAV and TAV: structural valve deterioration, BAV 20 (11.8%) versus TAV 16 (11.0%) at last follow-up (
conclusionsThis study indicated satisfactory long-term valve durability of TAVR in patients with BAV. Comparable hemodynamic outcome, structural valve deterioration, and bioprosthetic valve failure could be achieved in patients with BAV and TAV during long-term follow-up after TAVR.
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.