ArticleAnatolian journal of cardiology2025
Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Implantation with Newer Generation Evolut Valve by Size of Failed Bioprosthesis.
Article in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2025. 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.
- Surgical vs. Medical Management of Infective Endocarditis Following TAVR: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the clinical outcomes of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV TAVR) with newer-generation self-expanding Evolut valves according to the size of the failed surgical bioprosthesis.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients undergoing ViV TAVR with the Evolut Pro/Pro+/Fx between 2018 and 2022. These patients were compared based on the true internal diameter (ID) of the failed bioprosthesis, specifically ≤19 mm (small group) vs. >19 mm (large group). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and bioprosthetic valve failure. A Cox regression hazard model adjusted for covariates using propensity scores was used to assess the effect of the true ID on clinical outcomes.
resultsA total of 91 patients (small group, n = 35; large group, n = 56) were identified, and the median age of the entire cohort was 78 years. Patients in the small group were more likely to be female and have a small body surface area. The incidence of post-procedural mean gradient ≥20 mm Hg (40% vs. 8.9%, P = .001) and moderate/severe prosthesis-patient mismatch (63% vs. 38%, P < .001) was significantly higher in the small group. During a median follow-up period of 25 (range: 1.0-66) months, all-cause mortality showed no significant difference between the groups (adjusted P = .104); however, the rate of the primary composite outcome was significantly higher in the small group (adjusted hazard ratio 3.72, 95% CI 1.48; 9.37).
conclusionValve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for small bioprostheses was associated with worse early and midterm outcomes compared with those for large bioprostheses.
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.