ReviewCureus2025
Infective Endocarditis After Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Risks and Realities in Transcatheter Versus Surgical Repair.
Review in Cureus, 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
Aortic valve replacement is an effective intervention for valvular heart disease. However, it carries a rare but serious risk of infective endocarditis (IE). With the expanding use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in younger, lower-risk patients, it is critical to evaluate its IE risk compared with that of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We hypothesized that TAVR and SAVR have comparable IE incidence rates but distinct risk profiles influenced by procedural and patient-specific factors. A total of 17 articles were included in our study. Seventeen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and seven studies (118,443 patients) were included in the quantitative analysis. Studies focusing on the incidence of IE after TAVR and SAVR were included. The study was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was registered. There was no significant difference in IE risk between TAVR and SAVR (pooled log risk ratio (RR): -0.006, 95% CI (-0.198, 0.185), p = 0.948), although risk estimates varied widely (-1.14 to -1.57), with high heterogeneity (I² = 96%). Major risk factors included valve-in-valve procedures (RR = 2.88), pacemaker implantation (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.91), and chronic kidney disease (HR = 2.08). In-hospital mortality was high (TAVR: 34.4%, SAVR: 31.8%), with over 60% mortality at five years. TAVR and SAVR have similar rates of IE, but differences in data highlight the need for consistent reporting and personalized risk assessment. Better monitoring, especially for pacemakers or patients with kidney disease, could help improve outcomes. Since prosthetic valve infections have high death rates, guidelines for removing infected TAVR valves may need to be reconsidered.
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.