ReviewCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety of Navitor Versus Sapien Valves in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an established treatment option for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, particularly in older patients. In this meta-analysis, we compare the latest generations of self-expandable valves, Navitor (Abbott Structural Heart, Santa Clara, CA, USA), with balloon-expandable valves, Sapien (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA), in TAVI. We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies were considered eligible if they compared Navitor with Sapien valves in TAVI. Our search strategy yielded four studies with a total of 4,828 patients. In terms of safety and efficacy, no statistically significant differences were noted between the two groups in device and technical success, 30-day all-cause mortality, stroke incidence, or major vascular complications. Permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) (risk ratio (RR) 2.16; 95% CI 1.67 to 2.80;
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.