SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Incidence of Coronary Obstruction During Aortic Valve Implantation: Meta-Analysis and Mixt-Treatment Comparison of Self-Expandable Versus Balloon-Expandable Valve Prostheses.
Synthesis in Reviews 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recently, the transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) indications have expanded; meanwhile, valve systems have continuously evolved and improved. However, coronary occlusion (CO), a rare but catastrophic consequence of TAVR surgery, limits the expansion of indications for TAVR. Moreover, comparisons between different systems remain scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of CO associated with TAVR, specifically comparing self-expanding valves (SEVs) and balloon-expandable valves (BEVs), and further assess the safety profile of these valve subtypes. Methods: The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of CO during TAVR using BEVs or SEVs. Electronic databases were searched from January 2009 to June 2023, and this study included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and propensity pair-matched studies. Heterogeneity and inter-study variance were assessed using Cochran's Q, I Results: A total of 830 articles were searched referring to the incidence of CO using the valve deployment system of SEVs or BEVs during the TAVR procedure, from which 51 were included (27,784 patients). The procedure incidence of coronary obstruction was 0.4% for the SEVs and 0.6% for the BEVs. Treatment ranking based on network analysis revealed SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences (Irvine, CA, USA)) possessed the best procedural CO incidence (0.05%) performance, whereas SAPIEN (Edwards Lifesciences (Irvine, CA, USA)) produced the worst (1.04%). Conclusions: Our study indicates that CO incidence was not reduced during TAVR with BEVs compared to SEVs. SAPIEN 3 and SAPIEN had the lowest and highest TAVR-associated CO rates, respectively. These findings suggest that the SAPIEN 3 valve may be the best choice for reducing CO risk, and future studies should focus on its applicability in different populations. More randomized controlled trials with head-to-head comparisons of SEVs and BEVs are needed to address this open question. The PROSPERO registration: CRD42024528269, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024528269.
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.