ReviewUS cardiology2022
Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Young, Low-risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis.
Review in US cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mortality and morbidity benefits of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients ≤60 years: Findings from a national cohort.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Women of Childbearing Age in the United States.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2025Article
- Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 64 Years in the United States.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025Article
- Comparison of TAVR with SAVR on clinical outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aortic stenosis is a common form of acquired degenerative valvular disease associated with poor survival after the onset of symptoms. Treatment options for patients with aortic stenosis in addition to medical therapy include surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with either tissue or mechanical valves, or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with either balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves via either transfemoral or alternative access routes. In this review, the authors discuss the current evidence and special considerations regarding the use of TAVR versus SAVR in the management of severe aortic stenosis in young (<65 years of age), low-risk patients, highlighting the history of aortic stenosis treatment, the current guidelines and recommendations, and important issues that remain to be addressed. Ultimately, until ongoing clinical trials with long-term follow-up data shed light on whether interventions for aortic stenosis can be broadened to a low-risk population, TAVR in young, low-risk patients should be undertaken with caution and with guidance from a multidisciplinary heart team.
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.