ArticleJTCVS open2026
Mortality and morbidity benefits of surgical versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients ≤60 years: Findings from a national cohort.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
Objective: To compare outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients aged ≤60 years throughout the United States. Methods: Patients aged ≤60 years with aortic stenosis undergoing either first-time SAVR or TAVR between January 2006 and December 2025 were identified from TriNetX, an administrative real-world database. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality over 5 years. Cardiac-related outcomes were also assessed. Results were analyzed after propensity matching for age, sex, presence of bicuspid aortic valve, lower respiratory disease, liver fibrosis/cirrhosis, liver failure, kidney disease, dialysis dependence, and previous cardiac surgery. Results: Among 9841 patients, 7896 underwent SAVR, whereas 1945 underwent TAVR. Matching resulted in 1666 patients per cohort. Before matching, patients who underwent SAVR were younger, more likely to have bicuspid aortic valves, and had lower rates of lower respiratory disease, liver or kidney disease, dialysis use, and previous cardiac surgery. After matching, SAVR was associated with comparable mortality risk at 1 month but lower mortality risks at 1 year (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.92) and 5 years (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48-0.69). By the end of follow-up, SAVR was associated with decreased risks of acute myocardial infarction (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.86), endocarditis (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.82), complete atrioventricular block (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30-0.66), pacemaker implantation (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.83), paravalvular leak (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26-0.87), and reintervention (HR, 0.54; 95%, CI 0.38-0.78). Conclusions: Among patients aged ≤60 years, SAVR is associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates over TAVR.
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.