ArticleJTCVS structural and endovascular2025
Objective analysis of frailty-based 10-year outcomes of transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement.
Article in JTCVS structural and endovascular, 2025. 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
Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) by adjusting not only for conventional risk scores but also for frailty, cognitive function, nutritional status, and comorbidities. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 1258 patients (SAVR, n = 446; TAVI, n = 812) who underwent isolated elective procedures for AS between January 2014 and December 2024. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed based on 19 baseline variables including age, Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score, Clinical Frailty Scale, Mini-Mental State Examination, and Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and cardiac readmission over a follow-up period of up to 10 years. Results: After matching, 114 patient pairs were obtained. The SAVR group had longer intensive care unit and hospital stays. However, there were no significant differences in 30-day mortality, stroke, pacemaker implantation, or readmission rates. Over long-term follow-up, a significantly better survival rate was seen in the SVAR group compared to the TAVI group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.58; Conclusions: After comprehensive adjustment for frailty, cognitive function, and nutritional status, SAVR demonstrated superior long-term survival compared to TAVI, with comparable readmission rates. Personalized treatment strategies for AS should incorporate broader patient-specific factors to guide optimal therapeutic decision making.
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.