ReviewCureus2024
Transcatheter Procedure Versus Surgical Interventions for Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Contemporary Evaluation Against Conservative Management.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multicenter retrospective comparison of safety and efficacy among three antithrombotic regimens following TAVI.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For Aortic valve replacement (AVR), both transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) serve as a pivotal therapeutic approach for severe aortic stenosis (AS). While both modalities show advantages over conservative management, the long-term mortality benefits post AVR, especially when comparing TAVR with SAVR, remain uncertain. A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted through a systematic search of electronic databases up to December 7, 2023. Individual patient data extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots underwent pooling and modeling with stratification by surgical risk. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at five years. The study included 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 12 non-RCTs, encompassing 4,215 patients undergoing TAVR, 4,017 undergoing SAVR, and comparing 11,285 AVR patients with 23,358 receiving conservative management. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement exhibited significantly lower all-cause mortality at six months (hazard ratio (HR) 0.62, 95% CI: 0.52-0.74) compared to SAVR, with no significant difference beyond 6 months (HR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.19). There were no significant differences in cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.83-1.16), stroke (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.75-1.38), or valvular hemodynamics between TAVR and SAVR. Aortic valve replacement markedly reduced all-cause mortality compared to medical therapy (P < 0.001), with five-year crude mortality rates of 31.6% versus 49.3% and a difference in restricted mean survival time of 8.9 months. Similar outcomes were observed across high, intermediate, and low surgical risk categories. While TAVR demonstrated early mortality reduction compared to SAVR, no distinctions emerged in the overall five-year follow-up, regardless of surgical risk. Aortic valve replacement notably improved survival over conservative therapy. This study advocates for the preference of TAVR or SAVR in severe AS patients when feasible.
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.