ArticleMedicine2026
Comparison of transcatheter aortic valve implantation and minimally invasive sutureless aortic valve replacement: A single-center study.
Article in Medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of isolated aortic valve replacement using a sutureless bioprosthetic valve (Perceval) and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI). This single-center retrospective study evaluated 143 patients who underwent isolated surgical minimally invasive aortic valve replacement and TAVI procedures between January 2020 and February 2025. Demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data as well as perioperative echocardiographic findings were analyzed and compared. The patients were divided into 2 groups: Sutureless (n = 73) and TAVI (n = 70). The Intensive care unit stay, intubation time, and hospital discharge time were significantly shorter in the TAVI group (P < .05). The requirement for inotropic support was also lower (2.8% vs 24.1%, P < .001). At the 30-day follow-up, the TAVI group had significantly lower mean and maximum transvalvular gradient. The need for pacemaker implantation was significantly higher in the TAVI group (P = .001). Pacemakers were implanted in 1.4% of patients in the sutureless group and 17.1% of patients in the TAVI group. The sutureless group had a significantly longer mean discharge time (5.47 ± 2.86 days) compared to the TAVI group (3.89 ± 2.93 days; P = .001). Similarly, intubation time was significantly longer in the sutureless group (11.90 ± 5.84 hours) compared to the TAVI group (3.37 ± 19.17 hours; P = .001). TAVI is a safe and effective alternative in appropriately selected patients, offering shorter operative times and improved early postprocedural recovery without compromising clinical or hemodynamic outcomes.
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.