SynthesisPloS one2026
Coronary microvascular dysfunction in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCoronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is a complication of severe aortic stenosis. Its prevalence after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and prognostic significance are understudied, as are the post-TAVI trajectories of microvascular indices.
aimsThe aims of this study were to determine the pooled prevalence of CMD, the influence of the diagnostic modality, the post-TAVI coronary flow reserve (CFR) and microvascular resistance changes, and the prognostic impact of baseline CMD on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI.
methodsFive databases were searched from January 2010 to December 2025 for studies involving adults with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI in which CMD was assessed by wire-based thermodilution, angiography-derived indices, Doppler measurements, or stress cardiac magnetic resonance. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and GRADE, respectively. Random-effects meta-analyses (DerSimonian-Laird) pooled CMD prevalence (stratified by modality), CFR change (mean difference; before-after design), and prognostic hazard ratios (HRs). Change in microvascular resistance was synthesized narratively. The protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO: CRD42025143775) and reported per the PRISMA 2020 guidance.
resultsEleven primary studies were analyzed, 10 of which (n = 1,212) contributed to the prevalence analyses. An additional study (n = 126) was included in the sensitivity analyses only. CMD prevalence was 46.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] [34.0, 59.9]; I2 = 72%) and 38.4% (95% CI [35.3, 41.7]; I2 = 0%) when assessed using wire-based thermodilution (k = 6, n = 324) and angiographic (k = 4, n = 888) indices, respectively. CFR increased post-TAVI by a pooled mean difference of +0.49 (95% CI [+0.27, + 0.71]; I2 = 72%; k = 5, n = 103 paired observations). Reductions in microvascular resistance were confined to pressure-to-velocity and reserve ratio indices, and absolute minimal microvascular resistance was unchanged (k = 4, n = 85). The HR for MACE was 3.22 (95% CI [0.98, 10.60]; I2 = 78%; k = 2, n = 585). Substantial heterogeneity reflected non-equivalent CMD definitions.
conclusionThe prevalence of CMD pre-TAVI is influenced by the diagnostic method. CFR tends to improve after TAVI, likely due to reduced resting demand rather than structural repair. The CMD-MACE association should be viewed as hypothesis-generating due to limited studies, varied CMD definitions, and incompatible HR calculations. Prospective multicenter studies with standardized CMD definitions are required.
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.