ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2026
Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves in Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Does Valve Type Matter?
Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2026. 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.
- Balloon-Expandable Versus Self-Expanding Valves in Low-Flow, Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis: Does Valve Type Matter?Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal choice between balloon-expandable (BE) and self-expanding (SE) transcatheter heart valves (THVs) in patients with low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis (LFLG AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unclear.
aimsThis study aims to compare outcomes of BE THVs and SE THVs in patients with LFLG AS.
methodsThis was a retrospective, single-institution cohort study of TAVR procedures between 2012 and 2024. Patients with LFLG AS (mean gradient < 40 mmHg and ejection fraction < 50% or stroke volume index < 35 mL/m
resultsA total of 732 patients identified underwent TAVR for LFLG AS. Of these, 478 (65.3%) received a BE THV and 254 (34.7%) received a SE THV. STS PROM was similar between groups. There was no difference in 30-day mortality between groups. SE THVs had a lower mean gradient but increased rates of paravalvular leak at 30 days post-TAVR. Kaplan-Meier estimates were comparable between groups and there was no significant difference after multivariable analysis (HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.90-1.46, p = 0.27). Cumulative incidence estimates of HF readmission were similar between groups, however, BE THV was associated with reduced hazard of HF readmission on multivariable analysis (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59-0.99, p = 0.04).
conclusionsIn patients with LFLG AS undergoing TAVR, BE and SE THVs have comparable midterm survival. BE THVs have a reduced risk of HF readmission on multivariable analysis.
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.