ReviewJournal of visualized surgery2024
It happened tomorrow-transcatheter treatments in the lifetime management of aortic valve diseases.
Review in Journal of visualized surgery, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has evolved into a prevalent treatment for severe aortic stenosis, extending beyond high-risk patients to include those at intermediate and low surgical risk. This shift is evident in the escalating number of TAVR procedures, surpassing both isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and combined procedures in recent years. While surgical bioprostheses have historically demonstrated remarkable durability, the landscape is evolving with TAVR options. When evaluating the durability of aortic bioprostheses, challenges arise from variations in defining and reporting structural valve degeneration (SVD) with lack of balanced, controlled, real-world data providing solid evidence. In addressing SVD, reintervention strategies differ for degenerated SAVR and TAVR. Valve-in-valve (ViV) procedures dominate for SAVR, with a preference for their lower procedural risk. Redo SAVR remains a viable option, but with increased short-term mortality. In contrast, degenerated TAVR may involve transcatheter-in-transcatheter strategies or surgical explantation followed by SAVR, each posing distinct challenges and considerations. In the realm of infective endocarditis (IE), challenges arise in diagnosing and managing post-TAVR cases. Despite comparable incidence rates between TAVR and SAVR, TAVR presents unique complexities, including atypical clinical presentations and vegetations located outside the valve. Outcomes in patients with IE in TAVR are notably poorer than in SAVR, raising questions about optimal management strategies. Considering the increasing adoption of transcatheter solutions in younger, lower-risk patients, the choice between surgical and transcatheter options demands individualized considerations. As structural valve deterioration and IE emerge as common causes for reoperations, a comprehensive understanding of long-term outcomes based on real-world propensity score-matched data is essential for informed decision-making in the evolving landscape of aortic valve disease management.
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.