SynthesisCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2025
Balloon-versus self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation in small aortic annuli: a meta-analysis of randomized and propensity studies.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- BEVs Versus SEVs in Women With Small Annuli: 7-Year Insights From the OCEAN-TAVI Registry.JACC. Asia · 2026Article
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The hemodynamic and clinical differences between balloon- (BEV) and self-expandable valves (SEV) are critical for patients with a small aortic annulus (SAA). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the clinical and hemodynamic performance of these two systems in patients with severe aortic stenosis and SAA. A systematic review was conducted from inception to June 2024 for randomized and propensity-score studies comparing BEV and SEV outcomes in patients with a SAA. Reconstructed individual patient data (IPD) from Kaplan Meier curves was pooled for overall survival and rehospitalization for heart failure. Nine studies with 2856 patients met our inclusion criteria: 1427 in the BEV group and 1429 in the SEV group. SEV demonstrated superior hemodynamic performance, including improved iEOA (Standardized Mead Difference [SMD]: 0.52, p = 0.0012), lower mean gradients (SMD: - 0.89, p < 0.0001), and reduced PPM (Odds Ratio [OR]: 0.38, p < 0.0001) compared to BEV. BEV presented lower new pacemaker rates compared to SEV (OR: 1.52, p = 0.0447). There were no significant differences between SEV and BEV in terms of rates of > mild paravalvular leaks, early stroke, and Valve Academic Research Consortium-defined outcomes. Reconstructed IPD showed no significant differences in overall survival (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.95, p = 0.584) and rehospitalization for heart failure (HR: 1.05, p = 0.828) during follow-up. In patients with SAA undergoing TAVI the use of BEV was associated with higher frequency of PPM and/or pressure gradients. Similar early stroke, survival and rehospitalization rates were reported. Pacemaker rates were higher with SEV. Long-term follow-up studies are required, especially with newer-generation devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39964636What 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.