MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414161726 · doi:10.1159/000548359

A Comparison of Two Vascular Closure Strategies in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Suture and Plug versus Suture Alone – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4414161726 on OpenAlex
Hamzah Pratama Megantara, Iwan Dakota, Taofan Taofan, Suci Indriani, Ruth Grace Aurora, Suko Adiarto

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClosure (psychology)Fibrous jointVascular closure deviceAortic valveMulticenter study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Vascular complications following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) significantly contribute to morbidity and mortality. Conventional suture-based closure technique has been widely utilized for large-bore arterial access closure. Recent findings on hybrid strategy combining plug and suture-based devices has been on spotlight as it may improve the hemostatic efficacy and lower the access-site related complications and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing a suture-based approach with a hybrid closure strategy (suture+plug) in aortic stenosis patients undergoing TAVR. Included studies were appraised following the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools. Forest plots were extracted in Review Manager with a main outcome of pooled-risk ratio (RR). The primary endpoint was the composite of access-site related vascular complications as defined by Valve Academic Research Consortium criteria whilst secondary end-points were in-hospital bleeding, closure device failure, mortality, and unplanned endovascular or surgical intervention. RESULTS: Six eligible studies encompassing 2,064 patients were analyzed. Compared with suture-based closure, hybrid closure exhibited a lower rate of vascular complications (pooled-RR 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.57; p < 0.001), closure device failure (pooled-RR 0.35; 95% CI, 0.13-0.96; p = 0.04), in-hospital bleeding events (pooled-RR 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26-0.55; p < 0.001), and mortality (pooled-RR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.26-0.99; p = 0.049). Unplanned endovascular or surgical intervention was no different among two groups (pooled-RR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.17-1.06; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Hybrid vascular closure strategy offers better efficacy with fewer complications amongst patients undergoing TAVR, directing the clinical adoption of hybrid techniques, although further large-scale multicenter studies are warranted to confirm the benefit and optimize patient selection.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.020
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it