ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Implementation of an integrated care pathway for severe aortic stenosis: a prospective cohort study of clinical profiles, safety, and outcomes.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Severe aortic stenosis (AS) management increasingly requires multidisciplinary coordination across diagnostic, interventional, and rehabilitation stages. Integrated care pathways (ICPs) supported by structured data systems may improve safety and outcomes, but real-world evidence in AS remains limited. We aimed to characterize a contemporary cohort of patients with severe AS managed within an ICP at a tertiary hospital, comparing profiles and outcomes by treatment strategy, and to describe diagnostic procedures and the implementation of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) interventions embedded in the pathway. Methods: Prospective observational study of all consecutive patients with AS evaluated by a multidisciplinary heart team between 2018 and 2022. Baseline characteristics and frailty, diagnostic tests, CR interventions, procedural details, and outcomes were collected via an interoperable data management platform and compared across treatment groups: surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter (TAVR) valve replacement, or conservative management. Early survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank testing. Results: Among 984 patients (median age 78 years, 42% women), 43.9% underwent SAVR, 49.8% TAVR, and 6.3% were managed conservatively. TAVR and conservative groups were older, frailer, and had higher comorbidity. Device success at 30 days was high (≈91%), with periprocedural death at 2.5% for interventions, vs. 9.7% early mortality for conservative management ( Conclusions: Integrated care for a cohort of patients with AS, supported by structured data management, enabled comprehensive profiling, systematic outcome monitoring, and identification of improvement areas. Both SAVR and TAVR achieved high success with low early mortality, while conservative management had poor survival.
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.