SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with radiation-induced aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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. 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.
- Review
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
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective treatment for severe aortic stenosis, particularly in high-risk patients unsuitable for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). However, the efficacy of TAVR in patients with radiation-induced aortic stenosis remains uncertain and controversial. This meta-analysis evaluates clinical outcomes of TAVR in patients with prior chest radiation (C-XRT). Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted through September 15, 2024. Studies comparing TAVR outcomes in patients with and without prior chest radiation were included. Statistical analysis used STATA software with a random-effects model, incorporating Knapp-Hartung correction and prediction intervals. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots, Egger's test, Begg's test, and the trim-and-fill method. Results: The meta-analysis found no significant differences in short-term outcomes between patients with and without C-XRT. In-hospital mortality (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.14-4.69), 30-day mortality (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 0.71-3.55), and 1-year mortality (OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 0.52-2.54) were comparable. Similarly, rates of in-hospital myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding showed no significant differences. The GRADE assessment indicated very low-quality evidence for most outcomes, including in-hospital mortality and stroke, and low-quality evidence for outcomes like 30-day stroke and acute kidney injury. Conclusion: TAVR appears effective in patients with prior chest radiation, with comparable short-term outcomes to non-C-XRT patients. However, due to significant heterogeneity across the included studies and the low to very low quality of evidence, these findings should be interpreted with caution. The current data remains inconclusive, and further high-quality, prospective studies with longer follow-up periods are essential to better understand the long-term risks and confirm the safety and efficacy of TAVR in this patient population. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42024593497.
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.