Observational studyCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2025
Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves in Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis: Insights From the SWEDEHEART Registry.
Observational study in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 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.
- Paravalvular Leak After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR): A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
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
Abstract
backgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used in patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis, but there is limited comparative data on balloon-expandable (BEV) versus self-expanding valves (SEV) in this population.
aimTo compare clinical and hemodynamic outcomes between BEVs and SEVs in patients with BAV stenosis.
methodsThis observational cohort included all patients who underwent TAVR in Sweden between 2016 and 2022. Exclusion criteria included procedures for pure aortic insufficiency and valve-in-valve interventions. The analysis focused on Evolut, Sapien, Acurate, and Portico/Navitor valve families. A doubly robust approach was applied combining inverse probability of treatment weighting and multivariable regression. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted.
resultsOf 577 patients, 274 (47.5%) received a BEV. The majority in the SEV group received an Evolut valve (62%). The mean EUROSCORE II-predicted mortality risk was 4.1% for BEV and 3.6% for SEV. BEVs were used more in patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF ≤ 40%) and larger aortic annuli. There were no significant differences between groups in periprocedural mortality, all-cause mortality at a median follow-up of 675 days, or device success. However, SEVs had higher technical success (aOR: 2.21, p = 0.006), lower postprocedural gradients (adjusted coefficient: -3.72, p < 0.001), and reduced risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch (aOR: 0.10, p = 0.02). SEVs, though, had a higher incidence of paravalvular leakage (aOR: 7.5, p < 0.01).
conclusionBoth BEVs and SEVs were feasible with similar clinical outcomes in BAV stenosis. SEVs had better hemodynamic outcomes but more paravalvular leakage. Randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal valve choice.
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.