ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Treatment options for young patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02917980 (Multicenter Registry Study of Surgery and Transcatheter Intervention for Structural Heart Diseases), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Multicenter Registry Study of Surgery and Transcatheter Intervention for Structural Heart Diseases
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SAS) with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) retention remains controversial.
objectiveThe study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these three treatment modalities and to provide evidence for their clinical application and promotion.
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included asymptomatic patients with SAS who accepted treatment [defined as normal left ventricular function, aortic valve area ≤ 1.0 cm
resultsDuring follow-up of 66.5 (interquartile range: 63.1-69.2) months, the incidence of the primary end point was lower in the TAVR group than in the conservative treatment group (33.3% vs. 46.4%, P = 0.023), and the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was reduced in the SAVR group (12.8% vs. 22.3%, P = 0.047). The incidences of the primary end point (37.3% vs. 60.4%, P < 0.001) and stroke (19.0% vs. 40.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly lower in patients who converted to aortic valve replacement (AVR) compared with those who did not convert to AVR.
conclusionsEarly AVR improved both primary and secondary end points compared with patients having conservative treatments. Conversion to AVR during conservative treatment was found to be more likely to bring net clinical benefits for such patients.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration System NCT02917980.
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.