SynthesisClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2025
Natural history of initially asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a one-stage meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A New Benchmark for Modern Management of Valvular Heart Disease: The Whole-Life Cycle Management System.JACC. Asia · 2025Review
- Comparing Early Intervention to Watchful Waiting: A Review on Risk Stratification and Management in Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines on the management strategy for patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remain unclear. This uncertainty stems from the lack of data regarding the natural history of these patients. To address this gap, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the natural history of asymptomatic severe AS patients receiving conservative treatment.
methodsThe PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched from inception to 24 January 2024 using the keywords "asymptomatic" AND "aortic" AND "stenosis". We included studies examining patients with asymptomatic severe AS. In interventional trials, only data from conservatively managed arms were collected. A one-stage meta-analysis was conducted using individual patient data reconstructed from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Sensitivity analysis was performed for major adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients who remained asymptomatic throughout follow-up.
resultsA total of 46 studies were included (n = 9545). The median time to the development of symptoms was 1.11 years (95% CI 0.90-1.53). 49.36% (40.85-58.59) of patients who were asymptomatic had suffered a major adverse cardiovascular event by 5 years. The median event-free time for heart failure hospitalization (HFH) was 5.50 years (95% CI 5.14-5.91) with 36.34% (95% CI 33.34-39.41) of patients experiencing an HFH by year 5. By 5 years, 79.81% (95% CI 69.26-88.58) of patients developed symptoms (angina, dyspnoea, syncope and others) and 12.36% (95% CI 10.01-15.22) of patients died of cardiovascular causes. For all-cause mortality, the median survival time was 9.15 years (95% CI 8.50-9.96) with 39.43% (CI 33.41-36.40) of patients dying by 5 years. The median time to AVR was 4.77 years (95% CI 4.39-5.17), with 52.64% (95% CI 49.85-55.48) of patients requiring an AVR by 5 years.
conclusionOur results reveal poor cardiovascular outcomes for patients with asymptomatic severe AS on conservative treatment. A significant proportion eventually requires an AVR. Further research is needed to determine if early intervention with AVR is more effective than conservative treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39009912What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.