Observational studyCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2025
Five-year outcomes after surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement with new generation devices from the prospective OBSERVANT studies.
Observational study in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 2025. 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.
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Aortic Stenosis and Cardiogenic Shock.Circulation reports · 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The efficacy and durability of transcatheter (TAVR) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) has been demonstrated in randomized studies, but these findings were not confirmed in several observational studies. This is an analysis of 5706 AS patients who underwent SAVR from 2010 and 2012, and 2989 AS patients who underwent TAVR from 2017 and 2018 from the prospective OBSERVANT I and II studies. TAVR procedures were performed with new-generation devices. Five-year all-cause mortality was the primary outcome of this analysis. Propensity score matching yielded 1008 pairs of TAVR and SAVR patients. The mean EuroSCORE II was comparable between the study cohorts (TAVR 4.7 ± 4.0% and SAVR 4.5 ± 5.7%, p = 0.419). At 5 years, TAVR was associated with higher mortality (44.4% vs. 33.2%, HR 1.36, 95%CI 1.18-1.57, Log-rank test p < 0.001), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) (49.3% vs. 37.9%, HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.15-1.51, Log-rank test p < 0.001), permanent pacemaker implantation (23.1% vs. 9.3%, HR 2.72, 95%CI 2.14-3.45, Log-rank test p < 0.001) and percutaneous coronary intervention rates (3.7% vs. 1.2%, HR 3.44, 95%CI 1.76-6.71, Log-rank test p < 0.001) compared to SAVR. Age ≤ 80 years, male gender, EuroSCORE II ≤ 4.0%, absence of coronary artery disease and absence of diabetes were associated with higher 5-year mortality after TAVR compared to SAVR. TAVR had a significantly higher 5-year mortality than SAVR both in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 50% and > 50%. This observational study from prospective data showed that TAVR using new-generation devices was associated with increased rates of all-cause mortality compared to SAVR at 5 years. These findings should be viewed considering the non-randomized nature of this study and may be attributable to the characteristics of patients selected for TAVR, rather than the procedure itself.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40627314What 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.