ArticleStructural heart : the journal of the Heart Team2025
Feasibility of Valve in Valve After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With SAPIEN 3 Valves and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.
Article in Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The feasibility of transcatheter intervention after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is important for the lifetime management of aortic stenosis. Methods: A multicenter study was conducted of 4 patient groups: (1) TAVR using SAPIEN 3 at ≤90% implant depth, (2) TAVR using SAPIEN 3 at >90% implant depth, (3) SAVR, and (4) SAVR with aortic root enlargement (ARE) who underwent post-treatment computed tomography. Future TAVR was classified as challenging if the simulated neo-skirt was at or above the coronary ostia and <4 mm away from the coronary ostia and/or <2 mm from the sinotubular junction or aortic wall. Results: A total of 245 patients were evaluated (n = 117 TAVR using SAPIEN 3 at ≤90% implant depth, n = 66 TAVR using SAPIEN 3 at >90% implant depth, n = 31 SAVR, n = 31 SAVR with ARE). The proportion of patients where the simulated neo-skirt was below both coronary arteries was the highest in TAVR with implantation depth ≤90% (47.0%), intermediate in TAVR using SAPIEN 3 at >90% implant depth (22.7%) and SAVR (12.9%), and the lowest in SAVR with ARE (0%), ( Conclusions: Based on post-treatment computed tomography analysis, TAVR with SAPIEN 3 at implant depth ≤90% was the most repeatable initial intervention whereas SAVR with ARE did not improve the feasibility of future TAVR.
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.