ReviewAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2025
Comparison of TAVR with SAVR on clinical outcomes in patients with aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The advances and studies carried out in the area have shown that patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing surgical valve replacement (SAVR) did not have encouraging outcomes. This study aims to compare the different risk factors in patients with AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs. SAVR, respectively, to offer options and more favorable results based on the results obtained in patients with these conditions. Methods: The study was in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing outcomes of surgical and transaortic catheter valve replacements in adults were included. Descriptive statistics, binary random effects, and continuous random effects were used. Results: In total, eight studies with 18 671 patients were included in our study. All-cause mortality (2.48% vs. 3.03%), major bleeding (11.25% vs. 31.05%), and atrial fibrillation (2.39% vs. 50.42%) were lower in TAVR compared to SAVR. Furthermore, odds of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63-1.00; Conclusion: TAVR is superior to SAVR and significantly reduces the risks associated with all-cause mortality, stroke, AKI, and other clinical outcomes. Furthermore, additional research is regarding the long-term effects of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
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.