ArticleCardiovascular intervention and therapeutics2026
Long-term outcomes after balloon- or self-expandable transcatheter aortic valve replacement in small aortic annuli.
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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an established treatment for severe aortic stenosis. In patients with small aortic annuli (SAA), self-expandable valves (SEV) provide better hemodynamic performance than balloon-expandable valves (BEV); however, long-term outcomes remain unclear. We retrospectively analyzed 564 consecutive patients with SAA who underwent TAVR with follow-up of > 5 years, comparing BEV (n = 476) and SEV (n = 88). After propensity score (PS) matching, 84 patients were included in each group. Clinical outcomes were evaluated over a median follow-up of 2,134 days. Sensitivity analyses using inverse probability of treatment weighting were also performed. SEV was more frequently selected in patients with more severe baseline AS. SEV demonstrated more favorable post-procedural hemodynamics; BEV was associated with lower paravalvular leakage, whereas the difference in permanent pacemaker implantation was attenuated after PS matching. In the overall and propensity score-matched cohorts, there were no significant differences between BEV and SEV with respect to all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or first heart failure hospitalization. Moderate or greater hemodynamic valve deterioration incidence did not differ between groups in the overall (log-rank test, p = 0.372) or PS-matched cohort (log-rank test, p = 0.182). BVF events were rare in the overall cohort, and no BVF events occurred in the PS-matched cohort. SEV was associated with superior postprocedural hemodynamics; however, no significant differences in long-term clinical outcomes were observed compared with BEV. These findings underscore the need for further investigations using larger cohorts and contemporary devices to validate long-term comparative outcomes of BEV and SEV in patients with SAA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42720899What 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.