Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40123522›Full record

SynthesisClinical cardiology2025

Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Implications of TAVR in Patients With Active Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

Parsa Saberian, Rafael Contreras, Anoop Gurram, Amir Nasrollahizadeh, Narsimha Rao Keetha, Anthony Loc Nguyen, Sandeep Samethadka Nayak, Mohammad-Hossein Keivanlou, Mohammad Hashemi, Ehsan Amini-Salehi and 1 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Parsa SaberianCardiovascular Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8889-8630
Rafael ContrerasDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale New Heaven Health Bridgeport Hospital 267 Grant St, Bridgeport, CT, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6333-6394
Anoop GurramDepartment of Hospital Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-4225-2986
Amir NasrollahizadehTehran Heart Center, Cardiovascular Diseases Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6328-8468
Narsimha Rao KeethaOhio Kidney and Hypertension Center 7255, Middleburg Hts, OH, USA.
Anthony Loc NguyenDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center, San Diego, CA, USA.
Sandeep Samethadka NayakDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale New Heaven Health Bridgeport Hospital 267 Grant St, Bridgeport, CT, USA.
Mohammad-Hossein KeivanlouSchool of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Mohammad HashemiCardiovascular Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran.
Ehsan Amini-SalehiSchool of Medicine, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4985-2899
Daniyal AmeenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale New Heaven Health Bridgeport Hospital 267 Grant St, Bridgeport, CT, USA.

Funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the clinical outcomes and prognostic implications of TAVR in patients with active cancer remain uncertain. This meta-analysis evaluates procedural success, complications, and survival outcomes of TAVR in patients with and without active cancer.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA version 18.0.

resultsThe results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between cancer and non-cancer patients (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.65; p = 0.27). Similarly, 30-day mortality did not differ between the two groups (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.19; p = 0.49). However, 1-year mortality was significantly higher in cancer patients (OR = 1.93; 95% CI: 1.45, 2.56; p < 0.01). Two-year mortality was also higher in cancer patients (OR = 2.65; 95% CI: 1.79, 3.93; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed in major bleeding, acute kidney injury, stroke, or permanent pacemaker implantation between the groups.

conclusionWhile TAVR offers comparable in-hospital and short-term survival outcomes for cancer and non-cancer patients, long-term mortality is significantly higher in those with active cancer. These findings suggest that TAVR is a viable option for cancer patients with severe AS but requires careful long-term prognostic considerations. Further studies are needed to optimize management strategies for this complex population.

Indexed as

Aortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisNeoplasmsTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementGlobal HealthHospital MortalityHumansPostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexSurvival RateTreatment Outcomecancercomplicationsmeta‐analysismortalityprognosisTAVR

Identifiers

PMID40123522
PMCPMC11931327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.