ReviewEcho research and practice2025
The value of evaluating cardiac damage in patients with aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Echo research and practice, 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.
- Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty as a Bridge Therapy in Acute Valve Syndrome: A Narrative Review of Evidence Gaps and Future Directions.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2026Review
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
backgroundAortic stenosis (AS) is a common valvular heart disease where aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the only treatment. A novel staging system based on cardiac damage was developed to assess the pathophysiological consequence of AS and this has been shown to be associated with outcomes post AVR.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies which evaluated cardiac damage in patients with AS. A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed with data being extracted from relevant studies. The main outcome of interest were proportion of AS patients with signs of cardiac damage, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major adverse cardiovascular events.
resultsA total of 18 studies were included with 21,876 patients (mean age 79 years, 52.7% males). Pooled analysis indicated 76% of symptomatic severe AS patients and 88% of asymptomatic moderate/severe AS patients had signs of cardiac damage, with stage two being the most commonly reported (25.1% and 32.3% respectively). For symptomatic severe AS patients, the pooled all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality rates increased along an increase in cardiac damage stage from 9.4% to 2.0% respectively for stage 0 to 24.2% and 36.1% respectively for stage 4. In patients with asymptomatic moderate / severe AS, all-cause mortality ranged from 30.0% in stage 0 to 51.2% in stage 3/4. In patients with symptomatic severe AS undergoing AVR, meta-analysis indicated an increase in odds of cardiovascular related mortality for stage 4 cardiac damage only (OR 6.89, 95% CI: 3.04,15.61, p = 0.003). An increased odds of all-cause mortality was seen in for cardiac damage stages 1, 3 and 4 (OR 1.4, 95%CI: 1.10,1.77, p = 0.01, OR 2.27, 95%CI: 1.76,2.92, p = 0.0002 and OR 2.94, 95%CI: 1.97,4.38, p = 0.0006 respectively).
conclusionsCardiac damage is a common finding amongst patients with AS irrespective of AS severity or symptomatic status. Mortality rates appear to increase alongside an increase in cardiac damage staging. Cardiac damage may provide prognostic valve when considering the timing of AVR with left ventricular and right ventricular abnormalities being associated with increased odds of mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.