ArticleAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low- to intermediate-risk patients: a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data.
Article in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Valve-sparing root replacement versus Bentall procedure with bioprosthetic valves in patients with aortic insufficiency: a meta-analysis.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Pooled it
- The Utility of Cerebral Protection Devices in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-analysis.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Differential Impact of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on Right Ventricular Function: A Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of cardiovascular echographyArticle
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
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS), including low-risk patients. We aimed to update a systematic review and conduct a meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data from randomized control trials (RCTs) in low-/intermediate-risk patients. Methods: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and specific websites up to November 2023, for RCTs. A meta-analysis was performed using the reconstructed time-to-event data from the provided Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves from the included RCTs. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes included a composite outcome (all-cause mortality and disabling stroke), and heart failure rehospitalization. Landmark analysis for endpoints beyond 1 year was performed. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023487893). Results: Six RCTs with a total of 7,389 patients were included. The survival was comparable between both groups [hazard ratio (HR), 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.14; P=0.57]. The composite outcome and heart failure rehospitalization were comparable between the two groups. Lower mortality with TAVR was observed compared to SAVR before 1 year (HR, 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-0.98; P=0.03), while TAVR was associated with higher risk of mortality beyond 1 year (HR, 1.13; 95% CI: 1.01-1.27; P=0.04). Similarly, the TAVR group was associated with lower risk for the composite endpoint and heart failure rehospitalization before 1 year, but with higher rates beyond 1 year. Conclusions: Among low- to intermediate-risk patients, TAVR was found to be associated with favorable outcomes in the short-term (0-1 year). However, our landmark analysis demonstrated TAVR to be associated with poorer outcomes beyond 1 year.
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.