Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Renal Transplant Patients: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outcome of transcutaneous aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with kidney transplant is unknown, as majority of these patients were excluded from the major TAVR clinical trials. We sought to compare patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a history of kidney transplant. METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases were searched to identify relevant articles. The incidence of all-cause mortality and acute kidney injury (AKI) was calculated using relative risk on a random effect model. RESULTS: A total of 1,538 patients (TAVR 328, SAVR 1,210) were included in the study. TAVR was associated with lower mortality as compared with SAVR at 30 days from the index procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25 - 0.93; P = 0.03). One-year mortality was studied in three studies and showed comparable mortality in patients undergoing TAVR and SAVR (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.10 - 5.51; P = 0.78). Compared to SAVR, TAVR carries an identical risk of AKI (OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.10 - 1.90; P = 0.27). A sensitivity analysis performed by exclusion of Voudris et al study showed a non-significant difference in the mortality incidence of two groups at 30 days (OR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.27 - 1.91; P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a history of kidney transplant, TAVR was associated with a comparable risk of mortality and AKI compared to SAVR.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".