ReviewJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Comparing short- and long-term outcomes of transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement: a literature review.
Review in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV-TAVR) and redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (redo-SAVR) are two primary strategies for managing degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves. ViV-TAVR has gained prominence due to its minimally invasive nature, shorter recovery time, and reduced perioperative risk, making it preferable for high-risk patients with multiple comorbidities. In contrast, redo-SAVR remains the gold standard for younger, lower-risk patients because of its superior long-term durability, lower residual gradients, and decreased risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM). ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR are key strategies for managing degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valves. ViV-TAVR is favored for high-risk patients due to its minimally invasive nature, shorter recovery, and reduced perioperative risks, while redo-SAVR remains the gold standard for younger, lower-risk patients owing to its long-term durability and reduced risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. Ongoing concerns regarding long-term durability, higher transvalvular gradients, and potential coronary obstruction exist. Although redo-SAVR offers better longevity, it has higher perioperative risks and longer recovery times. Across the included propensity-score matched studies and meta-analyses, long-term all-cause mortality was generally comparable between ViV-TAVR and redo-SAVR, although results were heterogeneous and some studies suggested a possible advantage for redo-SAVR in selected populations and/or with longer follow-up. However, ViV-TAVR may be associated with increased heart failure hospitalizations (HHF) after two years and redo-SAVR has superior short-term outcomes with regard to decreased myocardial infarction and PPM. Comparative studies also highlight a lower risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with ViV-TAVR, while redo-SAVR patients may experience better mid- to long-term 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.