SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes between transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement for bicuspid aortic valve stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 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.
- Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- When Early Success Is Not the End Point: Reassessing Transcatheter Therapy in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the perioperative safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis.
methodsWe systematically analyzed studies from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI comparing TAVR and SAVR in BAV stenosis. Outcomes included postoperative mortality, complications, all-cause survival, and freedom from stroke. Data were pooled using random-effects models.
resultsFifteen studies ( n = 22 085; TAVR = 7840, SAVR = 14 245) were included. No significant difference regarding postoperative mortality between TAVR and SAVR in the whole patient cohort (odds ratio [OR]: 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.64-1.13; I2 = 16.13%) or adjusted patient cohort (OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.55-1.32; I2 = 40.28%) was observed. TAVR was associated with reduced risks of acute kidney injury (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.75; I2 = 88.94%) and major bleeding (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21-0.84; I2 = 95.45%) but increased risks of permanent pacemaker implantation (OR: 2.47, 95% CI: 1.61-3.78; I2 = 86.48%) and paravalvular leak (OR: 4.39, 95% CI: 1.32-14.61; I2 = 72.93%). Landmark survival analysis demonstrated superior all-cause survival for SAVR beyond 6 months ( P < 0.001). In addition, patients with BAV stenosis receiving SAVR had better freedom from stroke ( P < 0.001). The certainty of evidence was low for several key outcomes due to study limitations.
conclusionTAVR achieves comparable postoperative mortality to SAVR in BAV stenosis with fewer acute complications but inferior long-term survival and higher device-related risks. SAVR demonstrates durable survival benefits and enhanced stroke prevention, underscoring the need for individualized selection based on anatomy and life expectancy.
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.