ArticleEuropean heart journal open2025
Transcatheter vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valve stenosis.
Article in European heart journal open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mortality and morbidity benefits of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients ≤60 years: Findings from a national cohort.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Surgical vs. trans-catheter aortic valve replacement in patients With bicuspid aortic valve stenosis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis were excluded from major TAVR trials, and data comparing TAVR and SAVR in this population remain limited. To compare real-world, risk-adjusted outcomes of TAVR vs. SAVR in patients with BAV stenosis. Methods and results: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the TriNetX research network database. Adults (≥18 years) with echocardiographically confirmed BAV stenosis undergoing isolated TAVR or SAVR from 2012 to 2022 were included. Patients with prior cardiac procedures or concomitant cardiac interventions were excluded. Propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1) was used to balance covariates. Primary outcomes were 2-year all-cause mortality, stroke, and valve re-intervention. Secondary outcomes included new pacemaker implantation (PPM), 30-day AKI, and bleeding. 5547 patients (TAVR: 1444; SAVR: 4103) were included. In unadjusted analysis, TAVR patients were sicker and older at baseline and had a higher risk of death and/or stroke compared with those who underwent SAVR (10.9% vs. 5.37%, Conclusion: In propensity-matched BAV patients, TAVR and SAVR demonstrated comparable 2-year mortality, stroke, and re-intervention rates. These findings support TAVR as a viable option in appropriately selected BAV patients, warranting further prospective validation.
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.