ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025
Paradoxical clinical outcomes of severe versus very severe aortic valve stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation? a propensity score matched analysis and review of literature.
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. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Very severe aortic stenosis (VSAS) is a critical condition with unfavourable clinical outcomes if left untreated or treated by surgical valve replacement. In contrast, after transcatheter valve implantation (TAVI) outcomes seem to be similar or - paradoxically - even better compared to severe aortic stenosis (SAS), as indicated by previous studies. Methods: Data of patients from a single centre who underwent TAVI were retrospectively analysed. Patients with concordant AS (n = 475) were divided into SAS (n = 379) and VSAS (n = 96) groups. These groups are compared in terms of procedural (safety) and long-term (efficacy) outcomes, using propensity score matching. In addition, a review of relevant literature is provided. Results: After propensity score matching, 96 patients remained in each group. Procedural outcomes did not differ significantly between VSAS and SAS groups. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis showed a favourable trend toward lower overall mortality within a mean follow-up of 42 months after TAVI in the VSAS group (hazard ratio, HR, 0.668; 95 % confidence interval, CI, 0.430-1.038). This difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.073), however, it was significant in the subgroups of females (p = 0.045) and patients with NYHA class III (p = 0.043). Conclusion: Our analysis confirms - in line with previous studies - that patients with VSAS represent a substantial subgroup and have at least as favourable or - paradoxically -even better clinical results after TAVI compared to patients with SAS. Therefore, TAVI should not be withheld from these patients.
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.