Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42283239›Full record

ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2026

Valve-in-Valve TAVR Versus Redo Surgery in Women With Degenerated Aortic Bioprosthesis: A Single-Center Experience.

Marco Tagliafierro, Rahul Kanade, Darina Kirilina, Fady Soliman, Isao Anzai, Susheel Kodali, Torsten Vahl, Rebecca Hahn, Tamim Nazif, Arnar Geirsson and 5 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Marco TagliafierroDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-7585-7166
Rahul KanadeDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Darina KirilinaDepartment of Surgery, Center for Innovation and Outcomes Research, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Fady SolimanDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Isao AnzaiDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Susheel KodaliDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Torsten VahlDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Rebecca HahnDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Tamim NazifDepartment of Medicine, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Arnar GeirssonDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Hiroo TakayamaDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Michael ArgenzianoDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Paul KurlanskyDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Isaac GeorgeDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Luigi PirelliDepartment of Surgery, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBioprosthetic aortic valves require reinterventions once they degenerate. Options include redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (redoSAVR) and Valve-in-Valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV). Women with valvular disease have historically demonstrated higher procedural risks and worse outcomes compared to men. There is a knowledge gap regarding outcomes of aortic valve reinterventions in women.

aimsWe sought to compare outcomes of ViV versus redoSAVR in women with degenerated bioprosthetic surgical valves.

methodsConsecutive female patients with prior SAVR undergoing isolated ViV or redoSAVR between 2015 and 2025 were included. Primary endpoints were 30-day all-cause mortality, stroke, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary (1-year) endpoints included mortality, stroke, MACE, pacemaker implantation, and cardiac rehospitalization. Propensity score matching (PSM), Cox regression for survival, and Kaplan-Meier for MACE were performed.

resultsForty redoSAVR and 92 ViV female patients were included. ViV females were older, had lower BMI, and higher STS-PROM. Primary endpoints were not significantly different between ViV and redoSAVR: mortality 1 (1.1%) versus 1 (2.5%), p = 0.303; stroke 3 (3.3%) versus 2 (5.0%), p = 0.480; MACE 3 (3.3%) versus 3 (7.5%), p = 0.272. 1-year endpoints were also comparable: mortality 8 (8.7%) versus 3 (7.5%), p = 0.867; stroke 4 (4.3%) versus 2 (5.0%), p = 0.834; MACE 11 (12.0%) versus 5 (12.5%), p = 0.888; pacemaker 3 (3.3%) versus 1 (2.5%), p = 0.792; rehospitalization 10 (10.9%) versus 2 (5.0%), p = 0.265). Results were consistent before and after PSM.

conclusionsViV and redoSAVR in women yielded similar short-term outcomes. Both represent valid options for treatment of degenerated aortic bioprosthesis.

Indexed as

Aortic ValveAortic Valve StenosisBioprosthesisHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationProsthesis FailureReoperationTranscatheter Aortic Valve ReplacementAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansProsthesis DesignRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID42283239
PMCPMC13432494

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.