ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Surgical and transcatheter aortic valve replacement align survival with general population expectations: insights from standardized mortality ratios.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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.
- Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction shows no excess mortality in older patients: a population-matched relative survival analysis.GeroScience · 2026Observational
- Beyond Conventional Meta-Analysis: A Meta-Learning Model to Predict Cohort-Level Mortality After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR).Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Comparative long-term survival outcomes between transcatheter (TAVR) and surgical (SAVR) aortic valve replacement remain debated. While randomized controlled trials support TAVR's non-inferiority, real-world data indicate the opposite. Comparing SAVR and TAVR patients with matched reference populations may reduce bias from direct comparisons. We compared the 5-year overall survival rates of SAVR, non-frail TAVR, and frail TAVR patients with those of matched general population standards. Methods: All patients who underwent bioprosthetic SAVR or TAVR at a tertiary hospital from 2012 to 2021 were included. Based on intervention type and Clinical Frailty Scale, patients were divided into three groups: SAVR, non-frail TAVR, and frail TAVR. Survival was compared to individual-level age- and sex-matched general population data using standardized mortality ratios (SMRs). Results: The cohort included 939 SAVR, 328 non-frail TAVR, and 121 frail TAVR patients, with mean ages of 73.6, 85.3, and 85.6 years, and median EuroSCORE II values of 1.9%, 4.0%, and 5.2%, respectively. SAVR and non-frail TAVR patients had survival rates comparable to those of the reference population [SMR = 0.93 [0.76-1.14]; Conclusions: In non-frail patients, TAVR and SAVR both restore life expectancy to general population standards. For frail TAVR patients, the lower survival rate highlights frailty's important prognostic impact and underlines the ongoing challenge of refining patient selection to avoid futility.
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.