ArticleREC, interventional cardiology
TAVI for aortic regurgitation using dedicated devices. A systematic review.
Article in REC, interventional cardiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- TAVI Through the Years: A Systematic Review of Progress.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction and objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for pure aortic regurgitation is challenging due to inadequate device anchoring and increased risks of device embolization and paravalvular regurgitation (PVR). This study aimed to review the safety and efficacy of TAVI for aortic regurgitation with devices specifically designed for this indication. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and major conference archives up to April 2024 identified 143 unique results based on predefined criteria. Results: Fifteen studies (n = 788 patients) were included, with J-Valve used in 357 patients and JenaValve in 431. Men represented 51% of the cohort, with a mean age of 74.7 ± 8.8 years and an STS-PROM score of 5.8 ± 4.9%. Transapical and transfemoral access routes were used in 62.7% and 37.3% of patients, respectively. Overall, procedural success was achieved in 95.9% of cases; surgical conversion was required in 1.8%, device migration/embolization occurred in 3.2%, and a second valve (in-valve) was required in 2.0% of patients. At 30 days, 95.5% of patients were alive, and device success was reported in 93.3% of cases. Mild PVR was observed in 18.0% of patients, moderate-to-severe PVR in 1.7%, and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) was required in 13.0%. In studies focusing on transfemoral procedures (all using JenaValve), the pooled estimates showed a procedural success rate of 97.8% (95%CI, 94.4-100), device success of 97.0% (95%CI, 94.8-99.2), 30-day mortality of 1.96% (95%CI, 0.20-3.72), moderate-to-severe PVR of 0.47% (95%CI, 0.00-1.47), and PPI requirement of 18.7% (95%CI, 13.9-23.4). Conclusions: This systematic review of relatively small observational studies demonstrates the safety and favorable early outcomes of TAVI using J-Valve and JenaValve in patients with pure aortic regurgitation, especially when the transfemoral approach is used. Nevertheless, the need for PPI remains frequent.
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.