SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Early predictive value of prediction models for mortality after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly used due to the rising incidence of aortic stenosis (AS). Early identification of mortality risk after TAVR is challenging. Although various prediction models have been developed, no systematic review has evaluated their effectiveness in predicting mortality risk. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically evaluate the performance of models for early prediction of mortality risk after TAVR, so as to provide evidence-based support for the future development or updating of risk assessment tools. Methods: Databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for studies on tools for predicting the risk of mortality after TAVR, up to June 2024. PROBAST was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. A subgroup analysis was conducted based on different time points. Results: This systematic review included 36 studies with 272,390 patients receiving TAVR and 6 major scoring tools encompassing 23 new machine learning models. The meta-analysis showed that the concordance index (C-index) was 0.610 (95% CI: 0.588-0.632) for European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation I (EuroSCORE I), 0.615 (95% CI: 0.588-0.643) for EuroSCORE II, 0.578 (95% CI: 0.531-0.625) for French Aortic National CoreValve and Edwards II (France II), 0.594 (95% CI: 0.554-0.633) for the OBSERVANT score, 0.648 (95% CI: 0.622-0.674) for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk model, 0.632 (95% CI: 0.616-0.648) for the American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy (ACC TVT) risk model, and 0.705 (95% CI: 0.677-0.733) for summarized machine learning models. Conclusion: Determining the predictive performance of current established risk assessment tools for predicting the risk of modality after TAVR is challenging. Machine learning models seem to be more effective. Therefore, future research should include more subjects to develop more accurate models. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023485237.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.