ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Cardiac Damage Stages and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiac damage stages at follow-up and subsequent clinical outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Gradient Is Not Enough: Stroke Volume Index as the True Arbiter of Risk in Advanced Aortic Stenosis.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 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
43 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognostic impact of cardiac damage staging in severe aortic stenosis (AS) based on gradient patterns, symptoms, and initial treatment strategies is not well understood.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the differences in characteristics and clinical outcomes of AS patients according to cardiac damage stage, stratified by gradient patterns, symptoms, and treatment strategies.
methodsA total of 3,369 consecutive patients with severe AS (high-gradient [HG] AS, n = 1986; low-gradient [LG] AS, n = 1,383) from the CURRENT AS registry-2 were included. Cardiac damage was categorized into 4 groups (stage 0, stage 1, stage 2, and stage 3/4).
resultsThe cumulative incidence of the primary outcome (all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization) increased with advancing cardiac damage stages in both HG and LG AS. Adjusted HRs for stages 1, 2, and 3/4 vs stage 0 were significantly higher in both HG and LG cohorts (HG AS: HR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.23-4.96 [stage 1]; HR: 3.39; 95% CI: 1.72-6.67 [stage 2]; HR: 4.01; 95% CI: 1.95-8.25 [stage 3/4]; LG AS: HR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.04-2.84 [stage 1]; HR: 2.28; 95% CI: 1.44-3.61 [stage 2]; HR: 2.95; 95% CI: 1.79-4.88 [stage 3/4]). The higher risk of the primary outcome with more advanced cardiac damage was consistent regardless of the presence of symptoms and the initial treatment strategies in both HG and LG AS.
conclusionsCardiac damage staging is a useful tool for prognostic stratification in patients with severe AS, independent of gradient patterns, symptoms, and initial treatment strategies.
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.