ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 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.
- Current Trends and Future Challenges in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Expanding indications, narrowing margins: the renewed importance of aortic annular enlargement in the valve-in-valve era.Journal of visualized surgery · 2026Article
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: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used in patients with aortic valve stenosis (AS) at low risk for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), despite uncertainty regarding medium and long-term clinical outcomes. Objectives: We performed an updated meta-analysis comparing TAVR with SAVR in this population. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing TAVR with SAVR in low-risk patients with either bicuspid or tricuspid AS. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, rehospitalization and stroke at 30 days, 1 year and up to 5 years follow-up. Results: We included six RCTs with in total 4487 patients, mean age 74.2 ± 5.5y and of which 50.1 % underwent TAVR. The STS-PROM Score was similar for TAVR and SAVR (2.1 ± 0.7 vs. 2.2 ± 0.8 %). Thirty-day all-cause mortality showed a borderline significant difference favoring TAVR (RR 0.55; 95 % CI 0.30-1.01; p = 0.05). One-year all-cause mortality was significantly lower for TAVR (RR 0.60; 95 % CI 0.41-0.98; p = 0.01), while no differences were seen at 5-year follow up (RR 1.02; 95 % CI 0.81-1.29; p = 0.85). TAVR was associated with reduced 30-day (RR 0.67; 95 % CI 0.46-0.95; p = 0.03) and one-year rehospitalization rates (RR 0.72; 95 % CI 0.53-0.98; p = 0.04). Stroke rates at 30 days (RR 0.78; 95 % CI 0.48-1.32; p = 0.37), one-year (RR 0.79; 95 % CI 0.48-1.32; p = 0.37) and 5-year follow-up (RR 1.09; 95 % CI 0.81-1.46; p = 0.56) were not significantly different. Conclusions: TAVR in low-risk patients with AS results in reduced 1-year all-cause mortality and rehospitalization rates as compared with SAVR. This benefit is attenuated during protracted follow-up.
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.