SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Stented vs. stentless in aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
backgroundSymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) is often treated surgically with aortic valve replacement using stented or stentless prostheses. While stentless valves offer potential hemodynamic benefits, a robust synthesis of the evidence regarding clinical outcomes is needed. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of both valve types.
methodsThis study followed the PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42025636952). We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science up to December 2024, with a search update in May 2025. We included both randomized and non-randomized studies. The outcomes were early and overall mortality rates, stroke, pacemaker implantation, endocarditis, postoperative atrial fibrillation, total reoperation, severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, hospital stay, cardiopulmonary bypass time, cross-clamp time, and hemodynamic parameters, including postoperative mean aortic valve gradient, left ventricular mass and left ventricular mass index, and left ventricular ejection fraction. A random-effects model with odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) was employed.
resultsAfter screening 1,385 records, 20 studies were included, involving 3,940 participants with AS. Studies were first analyzed by design (randomized and non-randomized), and then pooled. There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality rates either early (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: [0.65 to 1.68], p = 0.861) or overall mortality at 1 year (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: [0.28 to 2.63], p = 0.797) and beyond 1 year (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: [0.62 to 1.46], p = 0.820). Postoperative complications showed comparable results between groups, except for pacemaker implantation, which was significantly increased in stentless valves (OR = 1.82, 95% CI: [1.14 to 2.92], p = 0.013). Hemodynamic outcomes showed no significant differences between groups.
conclusionOur study revealed that the rates of early and overall mortality, postoperative complications, and hemodynamic parameters were comparable between stented and stentless valve groups. However, patients receiving stentless valves exhibited a significantly higher incidence of pacemaker implantation.
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.