ArticleOpen heart2026
Comparing TA-TAVR and SAVR in severe aortic regurgitation: outcomes and valve haemodynamics.
Article in Open heart, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has already been recommended for some high-risk patients with aortic valve regurgitation, but there is still a lack of evidence regarding its early-term and medium-term safety and effectiveness compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement for severe aortic regurgitation (AR) at a single centre between January 2018 and December 2023. All patients in the TAVR group received the J-Valve system via transapical (TA) approach. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the groups. The primary endpoint was 2-year all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included other clinical events, left ventricular (LV) function recovery and prosthesis haemodynamics, assessed by transthoracic echocardiography.
resultsA total of 369 patients (median age 68 years, 26.6% female) were enrolled. Of these, 256 underwent TA-TAVR and 113 underwent SAVR. After 1:1 PSM, 76 matched pairs were included. There were no statistical differences between the groups in all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, heart failure rehospitalisation, permanent pacemaker implantation or moderate to severe paravalvular leakage at 30 days or 2 years. Before PSM, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in the TAVR group (57% (IQR: 45-63%) vs 61% (IQR: 55-65%), p<0.001), with no significant change in the SAVR group (61% (IQR: 55-65%) vs 62% (IQR: 59-66%), p>0.05). After PSM, LVEF improvement was comparable between groups (+4.0% (IQR: -1.5 to 10.0) vs +2.0% (IQR: -3.0 to 9.5), p=0.430). Haemodynamics was superior in the TAVR group (p<0.001), while regression of LV dimensions was greater in the SAVR group.
conclusionIn patients with severe AR, using the J-Valve for TA-TAVR showed comparable outcomes to SAVR regarding mortality and other clinical events. TAVR provided superior valve haemodynamics and was an effective treatment that significantly improved LV function, especially in high-risk patients.
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.