ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Severe Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in JACC. Advances, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComparative outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) stenosis remain uncertain.
objectivesThe authors synthesized evidence comparing: 1) TAVR outcomes in BAV vs tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis; and 2) TAVR vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) among patients with BAV stenosis.
methodsMEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched through January 31, 2026 (CRD420261304542). Random-effects models pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs. Exploratory meta-regression assessed study-level modifiers and temporal trends in 1-year mortality.
resultsFifty-two studies were included. In 39 studies comparing TAVR in BAV vs TAV, BAV was associated with higher paravalvular leak (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.18-1.77; P < 0.001), aortic root injury (RR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.10-3.04; P = 0.020), 30-day stroke (RR: 1.27; 95% CI: 1.02-1.59; P = 0.035), and 30-day mortality (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.00-1.55; P = 0.047), but lower 1-year mortality (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75-0.94; P = 0.002). The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score-but not BAV anatomy-predicted 1-year mortality (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.08-1.59; P = 0.006). BAV outcomes improved in recent studies (RR per year, 0.93; 95% CI: 0.87-1.00; P = 0.048). In 13 studies comparing TAVR vs SAVR in BAV, TAVR had higher paravalvular leak (RR: 7.08; 95% CI: 2.28-21.98; P < 0.001) and lower major bleeding (RR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17-0.44; P < 0.001) but similar 30-day stroke (P = 0.288) and mortality (P = 0.452).
conclusionsTAVR for BAV stenosis was associated with procedural risk than TAVR for TAV stenosis but lower 1-year mortality. Compared with SAVR, TAVR showed procedural trade-offs without early mortality differences.
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.