Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality of Evidence of Included Studies

From: Structural durability of early-generation Transcatheter aortic valve replacement valves compared with surgical aortic valve replacement valves in heart valve surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Certainty assessment

№ of patients

Effect

Certainty

Importance

№ of studies

Study design

Risk of bias

Inconsistency

Indirectness

Imprecision

Other considerations

TAVR valve

SAVR valve

Relative (95% CI)

Absolute (95% CI)

Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a self-expanding prosthesis15

1

randomised trials

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

390/747 (52.2%)

357/747 (47.8%)

not estimable

 

HIGH

CRITICAL

3-Year Outcomes in High-Risk Patients Who Underwent Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement16

1

randomised trials

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

391/750 (52.1%)

359/750 (47.9%)

not estimable

 

HIGH

 CRITICAL

Longitudinal Hemodynamics of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valves in the PARTNER Trial17

1

randomised trials

serious a,b

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

2482/2795 (88.8%)

313/2795 (11.2%)

not estimable

 

MODERATE

 CRITICAL

5-Year Outcomes of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients18

1

randomised trials

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

390/744 (52.4%)

354/744 (47.6%)

not estimable

 

HIGH

 CRITICAL

Comparison of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Longitudinal Study of Echo Parameters in Cohort A of the PARTNER Trial19

1

randomised trials

serious b

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

348/699 (49.8%)

351/699 (50.2%)

not estimable

 

MODERATE

CRITICAL

Transcatheter or Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients20

1

randomised trials

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

1101/2032 (54.2%)

1021/2032 (50.2%)

not estimable

 

HIGH

CRITICAL

Self-Expanding Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Surgical Valve Replacement in Patients at High Risk for Surgery A Study of Echocardiographic Change and Risk Prediction21

1

randomised trials

serious b

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

389/795 (48.9%)

353/795 (44.4%)

not estimable

 

MODERATE

CRITICAL

5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised trial22

1

randomised trials

serious a

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

348/699 (49.8%)

351/699 (50.2%)

not estimable

 

MODERATE

CRITICAL

Surgical or Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Intermediate-Risk Patients [9]

1

randomised trials

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

864/1660 (52.0%)

796/1660 (48.0%)

not estimable

 

HIGH

CRITICAL

Durability of Transcatheter and Surgical Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Patients at Lower Surgical Risk [10]

1

randomised trials

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

139/274 (50.7%)

135/274 (49.3%)

not estimable

 

HIGH

CRITICAL

Five-Year Clinical and Echocardiographic Outcomes From the NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial in Patients at Lower Surgical Risk [11]

1

randomised trials

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

145/280 (51.8%)

135/280 (48.2%)

not estimable

 

HIGH

CRITICAL

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis: 1-Year Results From the All-Comers NOTION Randomized Clinical Trial [12]

1

randomised trials

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

145/280 (51.8%)

135/280 (48.2%)

not estimable

 

HIGH

CRITICAL

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Valve in Low-Risk Patients [8]

1

randomised trials

not serious

not serious

not serious

not serious

none

725/1403 (51.7%)

678/1403 (48.3%)

not estimable

 

HIGH

CRITICAL

  1. CI Confidence interval
  2. Explanations
  3. a. Patients and their treating physicians were not masked to treatment allocation
  4. b. Attrition bias due to amount, nature or handling of incomplete outcome data