ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2026
Midterm outcomes after TAVR or SAVR in low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in the real clinical practice in Japan.
Article in Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics, 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
44 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical trials in low risk patients have clearly demonstrated clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) comparable to those of surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, data are lacking on the appropriate treatment selection for patients with severe AS and low surgical risk in Japanese routine clinical practice. Among 3369 patients enrolled in the CURRENT AS Registry-2 between April 2018 and December 2020, the current study population include 826 patients with low Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score and not on hemodialysis who actually underwent TAVR (439 patients) or SAVR (387 patients). After propensity score matching, there remained 162 patients in each group. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalization. The cumulative 3-year incidence of the primary outcome was not significantly different between the TAVR and SAVR groups (19.5% and 17.4%, P = 0.82). Even after adjusting for age and institution, there was no excess risk of TAVR relative to SAVR for the primary outcome (adjusted HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.50-2.20, P = 0.91). In low-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR compared to SAVR was associated with comparable clinical outcomes for a composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke and heart failure hospitalization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42587248What 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.