ReviewCureus2024
Outcomes and Adverse Effects of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) in Cancer Patients: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Cancer Patients: A Contemporary Review of the Specific Challenges, the Outcomes, Risk Stratification, and Decision-Making.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Catheter-Based Valvular and Structural Interventions in Cancer Patients.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
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
Aortic valve disease and cancer are significant causes of mortality, especially in older populations. This meta-analysis addresses a critical question in the management of patients with both aortic valve disease and cancer. As these two conditions are major contributors to mortality, determining the best course of treatment can be complex. Traditionally, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclude cancer patients, leaving a gap in clinical evidence. This study steps in to fill that gap by pooling data from over 120,000 patients in 15 cohort studies, following PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in cancer patients. The primary focus of the analysis was all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes including stroke, pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, and vascular complications. The results revealed no statistically significant differences between cancer and non-cancer groups in terms of mortality or complications. These findings suggest that TAVR can be a safe and effective option for patients with cancer, suggesting that deferring cardiovascular interventions in favor of cancer treatment may not always be necessary. However, the observational nature of the included studies does introduce potential biases, such as confounding factors and selection bias. The study highlights the need for more targeted research that focuses on specific types and stages of cancer to better understand how these factors may influence outcomes. Despite these limitations, the meta-analysis provides valuable insights and suggests that TAVR could be a viable treatment path for patients managing both cancer and aortic valve disease.
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.