SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Transcatheter aortic valve replacement in failed transcatheter versus failed surgical bioprostheses: a systematic review with exploratory meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
Background: With the expanding use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in younger patients, the need for reintervention on failed bioprostheses is rising. Comparative evidence between redo TAVR for failed transcatheter valves (TAV-in-TAV) and TAVR for failed surgical valves (TAV-in-SAV) is limited. Objective: To systematically review and meta-analyse the clinical, haemodynamic, and safety outcomes of TAV-in-TAV versus TAV-in-SAV. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase were searched from inception to April 2026. Studies directly comparing TAV-in-TAV with TAV-in-SAV and reporting original data with ≥10 patients per group were included. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-I and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for 30-day mortality, 1-year mortality, mean transvalvular gradient at 30 days, and new permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. Results: Four observational studies, including 705 patients in the extracted comparative cohorts, met the inclusion criteria. Two full-text studies contributed to the primary quantitative analyses. TAV-in-TAV was not associated with a statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality compared with TAV-in-SAV (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25-2.00), nor in 1-year mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.47-2.18). TAV-in-TAV was associated with lower mean transvalvular gradients at 30 days (MD -2.71 mmHg, 95% CI -4.07 to -1.34). A non-significant trend toward higher new permanent pacemaker implantation was observed after TAV-in-TAV (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.94-3.65). Conclusion: Current comparative evidence between TAV-in-TAV and TAV-in-SAV remains limited and observational. No definitive mortality difference was identified, but clinically meaningful benefit or harm cannot be excluded. TAV-in-TAV shows a consistent early haemodynamic signal with lower gradients, while the possible increase in pacemaker implantation remains exploratory. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and require confirmation in larger prospective studies with longer follow-up. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261369410, PROSPERO CRD420261369410.
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.