SynthesisInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2026
Surgical vs Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis- an Updated Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Individual Patient Data.
Synthesis in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe management of asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) is controversial. We perform a meta-analysis of reconstructed individual patient data to compare conservative treatment versus transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR or SAVR) in asymptomatic AS.
methodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were systematically searched, through 25th September 2025, to identify any observational or randomized controlled studies that comply with our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were short cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular mortality as well as long-term mortality. We combined aggregate data meta-analysis for dichotomous outcomes using incidence rate ratio (IRR) with reconstructed time-to-event data derived from published Kaplan-Meier curves using validated algorithms.
resultsSeventeen studies were included. Overall, AVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with conservative management (IRR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.32-0.57; P < .001). Cardiovascular mortality was also significantly reduced with AVR (IRR = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29-0.75; P < .01; I2 = 62%). The risk of heart failure hospitalization was markedly lower among AVR recipients (IRR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.22-0.67; P < .01), with consistent benefit across study designs. AVR was further associated with a substantial reduction in sudden cardiac death (IRR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04-0.48; P < .01) and myocardial infarction (IRR = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.04-0.31; P = .03). The risk of stroke was not significantly different between groups (IRR = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.02; P = .07). Reconstructed Kaplan-Meier analyses demonstrated durable long-term survival benefit with AVR, consistent across surgical and transcatheter approaches.
conclusionsPatients with asymptomatic AS, managed with either SAVR or TAVR, were associated with lower short- and long-term mortality compared to conservative management.
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.