SynthesisOpen heart2025
Emergency interventions for cardiogenic shock due to decompensated aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Open heart, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Direct Comparison of Urgent Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2025Pooled it
- Consecutive Emergency Carotid Artery Stenting and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in a Patient With Cardiogenic Shock: A Case Report.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Transcatheter management of cardiogenic shock in severe aortic stenosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Special topics: heart failure-related cardiogenic shock, valvular heart disease and end-stage renal disease. Part 4 of the International Expert Opinion Series on Acute Heart Failure Management.Heart failure reviews · 2025Review
- [The TAVI heart team].Herz · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCardiogenic shock (CS) induced by severe aortic stenosis (AS) is a life-threatening condition with high mortality. Despite advancements in emergency interventions, the optimal treatment approach remains uncertain.
aimThis study aimed to systematically review and analyse the existing evidence on outcomes of emergency transcatheter aortic valve implantation (eTAVI) and emergency balloon aortic valvuloplasty (eBAV) in CS patients.
methodsA systematic literature review and meta-analysis was performed. The primary endpoint was mortality at 30 days. Secondary endpoints were in-hospital mortality, 1-year mortality, bleeding, major vascular complications, myocardial infarction, stroke, incidence of pacemaker implantation, acute kidney injury and aortic regurgitation.
resultsSeventeen studies were included, totalling 2811 patients. The analysis revealed a 30-day mortality pooled estimated rate for eTAVI of 19% (CI 0.17 - 0.20) and for eBAV 39% (CI 0.32 - 0.46). In-hospital mortality pooled estimated rates were 11% for eTAVI (CI 0.06 - 0.18) and for eBAV 40% (CI 0.28 - 0.54). One-year mortality pooled estimated rates for eTAVI were 29% (CI 0.20 - 0.40) and for eBAV 67% (CI 0.58 - 0.74). Pooled estimated rates of any bleeding were 12% for eTAVI (CI 0.06 - 0.20) and 15% for eBAV (CI 0.10 - 0.21). The rate of major vascular complications for eTAVI was 8% (CI 0.07 - 0.10) and 3% for eBAV (CI 0.0 - 0.23).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis indicates that mortality in CS due to AS remains high despite emergency interventional treatment. These findings offer critical insights for clinical decision-making optimising patient care in this critically ill population.
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.