SynthesisStroke2026
Stroke Risk After Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Aortic Stenosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Stroke, 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.
- Contemporary Management of Aortic Stenosis: Timing of Intervention and Lifetime Valve Management.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundStroke is a possible complication after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis (AS), impacting morbidity and mortality. Accurate estimates of the proportion of individuals who experience stroke within and beyond the periprocedural period after transcatheter AVR (TAVR), surgical AVR, and valve-in-valve (ViV) replacement are essential for management and prognostication. The objective was to determine the proportion of adults aged >18 who experienced an ischemic stroke after bioprosthetic AVR for AS.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted from database inception through March 2024. Studies reporting on stroke rates at least 90 days after bioprosthetic AVR for severe AS, including ViV procedures, and meeting predefined eligibility criteria were included. The pooled proportion of individuals experiencing a stroke was estimated for TAVR and ViV procedures, whereas comparative analyses between TAVR and surgical AVR were performed using mixed-effects models in studies directly comparing both procedures.
resultsTwenty-seven studies were included in the native AS treatment cohort, and 5 in the ViV subanalysis. In native AS, the pooled 30-day proportion of individuals who had a stroke after TAVR was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.5-3.9), with different studies reporting major and minor stroke proportions of 1.7% each. At 1 year, all stroke proportion was 5.0% (95% CI, 4.0-6.0), major stroke was 3.0%, and minor stroke was 2.0%. Comparative analysis demonstrated that TAVR was associated with significantly lower odds of all stroke at 30 days compared with surgical AVR (odds ratio, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57-0.93]). No significant difference in the proportions of individuals who had a stroke was observed in TAVR versus surgical AVR at 1, 2, or 5 years. In the ViV cohort, the pooled 30-day and 1-year all stroke proportion after ViV was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and 3.0% (95% CI, 2.0-6.0), respectively.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis provides updated estimates of stroke after bioprosthetic AVR for AS, capturing risk beyond the early periprocedural period. Future studies should investigate the causes of long-term stroke post-AVR, the effects of different antithrombotic therapies on the risk of stroke, as well as the potential impact of these procedures on short and long-term cognitive function.
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.