SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Evaluating long-term outcomes and the impact of small aortic annulus on valve replacement-a novel systematic review and meta-analysis comparing surgery vs. transcatheter interventions.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is often compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis treatment. This meta-analysis evaluates the long-term efficacy and safety of TAVI vs. SAVR in aortic stenosis patients, as well as their respective impact on patients with small aortic annulus (SAA). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and comparative observational studies on TAVI vs. SAVR with long-term follow-up (3-5 years) or SAA. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Meta-analyses were conducted with RevMan 5.4 using a random-effects model, with risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) as effect measures. Results: A total of 17 studies were included in our review. In the long-term analysis, all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the TAVI group [RR 1.10; 95% CI: 1.01-1.19], but the incidence of major bleeding [RR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.68-0.90] and atrial fibrillation was significantly lower [RR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.29-0.48] in the TAVI group. No significant difference was found between the two groups regarding other long-term outcomes. For SAA outcomes, there was no significant difference in terms of all-cause mortality [RR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.63-1.35], although cardiovascular mortality was significantly increased in the TAVI group [RR 2.08; 95% CI: 1.09-3.98]. TAVI significantly increased the rate of major vascular complications [RR 3.58; 95% CI: 1.10-11.61], aortic regurgitation/PVL [RR 6.91; 95% CI: 2.66-17.97], and pacemaker implantation (RR 2.87; 95% CI: 1.74-4.75]. TAVI significantly improved the incidence of prosthesis patient mismatch [RR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.89], effective orifice valve area (EOA) [MD 0.10; 95% CI: 0.01-0.19], and length of stay in hospital [MD -4.88; 95% CI: -5.52 to -4.23]. There were no significant differences in other clinical or echocardiographic outcomes. Conclusions: TAVI was associated with higher long-term all-cause mortality compared to SAVR in the overall population. Among patients with small aortic annulus, no survival benefit was observed with TAVI, and cardiovascular mortality was significantly increased. Future RCTs should explore SAA-related outcomes with standardized diagnostic criteria. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk, PROSPERO CRD42024541862.
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.