Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40270857›Full record

ReviewAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2025

How to avoid transcatheter aortic valve replacement explant as the second valve procedure: image assessment for the index transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Kendra J Grubb, Hiroki A Ueyama, Stephanie K Tom, R Michael Reul, Alexander P Nissen, Andy Tully, Anton Camaj, John Lisko, Joe Xie, Elizabeth L Norton and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

12 authors.

Kendra J GrubbDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Hiroki A UeyamaDivision of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Stephanie K TomDepartment of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
R Michael ReulDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Alexander P NissenDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Andy TullyDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Anton CamajDivision of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
John LiskoDivision of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Joe XieDivision of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Elizabeth L NortonDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kanika KalraDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Patrick T GleasonDivision of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The management of severe aortic stenosis (AS) has evolved significantly, with a shift toward shared decision-making regarding the choice of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This shift necessitates careful consideration of long-term valve durability, as both TAVR and SAVR with bioprosthetic valves offer limited durability, potentially requiring reoperation later in life. While mechanical valves and the Ross procedure offer lifelong durability, patient preferences, including avoidance of anticoagulation, often dominate the discussion. This manuscript reviews the complex decision-making process in selecting the most appropriate valve for the first intervention, focusing on balancing the immediate benefits of a less invasive procedure with the long-term risks and the potential need for a second valve intervention. In the TAVR era, younger patients elect the least invasive treatment option with the shortest recovery. Age, anticoagulation tolerance, comorbidities, and aortic root anatomy influence valve choice, with particular attention to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). Here, we emphasize that careful preoperative planning is essential to minimize PPM and optimize hemodynamics for the first valve, considering the possibility of future valve interventions. Furthermore, advanced imaging and simulation tools, such as computed tomography (CT) and artificial intelligence-based platforms, are now being utilized to predict the feasibility of redo interventions and guide the selection of the initial valve. The increasing prevalence of redo-TAVR and TAVR explantation underscores the importance of planning for a second valve at the time of the initial intervention. Simulation techniques can predict the anatomical feasibility of redo-TAVR, providing a safer framework for managing patients requiring subsequent valve replacements. Ultimately, heart teams must equip themselves with the tools and expertise necessary to ensure the durability of the first valve and readiness for future interventions, thereby improving patient outcomes over their lifetimes.

Indexed as

Aortic stenosis (AS)aortic valve replacement (AVR)prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM)redo-TAVRsurgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)

Identifiers

PMID40270857
PMCPMC12013759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.