ArticleAnnals of thoracic surgery short reports2025
National Midterm Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.
Article in Annals of thoracic surgery short reports, 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.
- Transcatheter Versus Mechanical and Bioprosthetic Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Retrospective Patient Cohorts with Aortic Stenosis <75 Years.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study compared the early and midterm outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a real-world entire population in Korea. Methods: During 5 years from June 2015 to May 2019, 1468 patients underwent primary isolated transfemoral TAVI and 3897 patients underwent primary isolated SAVR in Korea. Early and midterm clinical outcomes were compared between the groups, and propensity score-matched analysis was also performed to balance between the groups. Subgroup analyses were performed by dividing the overall cohort into 6 age-subgroups of <65, 65 to 69, 70 to 74, 75 to 79, 80 to 84, and ≥85 years. Follow-up was 100% complete. Median follow-up duration was 2.5 years in the TAVI group and 3.0 years in the SAVR group. Results: There was no difference in periprocedural mortality between the groups in the overall cohort (3.2% in TAVI vs 3.5% in SAVR, Conclusions: TAVI and SAVR demonstrated comparable midterm survival in the real-world entire population from 2015 to 2019 in Korea. Comparable midterm survival was also demonstrated between all age-subgroups.
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.