SynthesisIndian heart journal
Self-expanding or balloon-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic annulus: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Indian heart journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA small aortic annulus presents unique hemodynamic challenges during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), increasing the risk of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) and suboptimal valve performance. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of self-expanding valves (SEVs) versus balloon-expandable valves (BEVs) in patients with a small aortic annulus.
methodsA systematic search using 4 databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL, was conducted from inception to June 1, 2025. Studies comparing clinical outcomes of SEVs and BEVs in patients with a small aortic annulus were included.
resultsThirty-eight studies involving 19,421 participants were included. No significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed between SEVs and BEVs from in-hospital to 5-year follow-up. SEVs were associated with a significantly lower risk of PPM at discharge (OR 0.34, 95 % CI 0.28-0.42), 30 days (OR 0.31, 95 % CI 0.21-0.47), and 1 year (OR 0.25, 95 % CI 0.15-0.42). However, SEVs were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital paravalvular leakage (PVL) (OR 1.95, 95 % CI 1.39-2.74), moderate-to-severe PVL (OR 2.48, 95 % CI 1.91-3.22), and permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) both in-hospital and at 30 days. These findings remained consistent across sensitivity analyses limited to new-generation valves and propensity score-matched or randomized studies.
conclusionsSEVs offer favorable hemodynamic advantages and lower risks of PPM and valve dysfunction compared to BEVs, with no difference in survival. However, these benefits must be weighed against the increased risks of PVL and PPI. Individualized valve selection remains essential to optimizing outcomes in TAVR patients.
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.