ArticleJournal of Zhejiang University. Science. B2025
COMPERA 2.0 risk stratification in patients with severe aortic stenosis: implication for group 2 pulmonary hypertension.
Article in Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B, 2025. 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
COMPERA 2.0 risk stratification has been demonstrated to be useful in patients with precapillary pulmonary hypertension (PH). However, its suitability for patients at risk for post-capillary PH or PH associated with left heart disease (PH-LHD) is unclear. To investigate the use of COMPERA 2.0 in patients with severe aortic stenosis (SAS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), who are at risk for post-capillary PH, a total of 327 eligible SAS patients undergoing TAVR at our institution between September 2015 and November 2020 were included in the study. Patients were classified into four strata before and after TAVR using the COMPERA 2.0 risk score. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression model. The study cohort had a median (interquartile range) age of 76 (70‒80) years and a pulmonary arterial systolic pressure of 33 (27‒43) mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) before TAVR. The overall mortality was 11.9% during 26 (15‒47) months of follow-up. Before TAVR, cumulative mortality was higher with an increase in the risk stratum level (log-rank, both
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.