ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Transcaval access for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transfemoral access is considered the standard route for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, in some cases, this access route is contraindicated. Alternative access routes, such as transaxillary, are emerging as first-line approaches to address these limitations, while the transcaval approach remains uncertain. Our Meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety of the transcaval approach compared to other access routes for TAVR. Methods: We searched five databases, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase, from inception until April 2024 for any study that reports transcaval access alone or compares it to any alternative access in TAVR patients. We used Risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and Mean Difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with a 95% confidence interval. Results: Eleven studies with 1003 patients were included, transcaval showed non-statistically significant difference over alternatives in terms of intra-hospital, 30 days, and long-term all-cause mortality with a RR of 0.08 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.99, Conclusion: Transcaval access for TAVR is a safe and feasible method that can be considered a new alternative when trans-femoral access is contraindicated.
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.