Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 304

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison Between Transcatheter and Surgical Prosthetic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

Open access
Clavel, M.A., Webb, J.G., Rodés-Cabau, J., Masson, J.B., Dumont, E., De Larochellière, R., Doyle, D., Bergeron, S., Baumgartner, H., Burwash, I.G., Dumesnil, J.G., Mundigler, G., Moss, R., Kempny, A., Bagur, R., Bergler-Klein, J., Gurvitch, R., Mathieu, P., Pibarot, P.·2010·Circulation

Abstract

Background—: Patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) have a poor prognosis with conservative therapy but a high operative mortality when treated surgically. Recently, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients considered at high or prohibitive operative risk. The objective of this study was to compare TAVI and SAVR with respect to postoperative recovery of LVEF in patients with severe aortic stenosis and reduced LV systolic function. Methods and Results—: Echocardiographic data were prospectively collected before and after the procedure in 200 patients undergoing SAVR and 83 patients undergoing TAVI for severe aortic stenosis (aortic valve area ≤1 cm 2 ) with reduced LV systolic function (LVEF ≤50%). TAVI patients were significantly older (81±8 versus 70±10 years; P <0.0001) and had more comorbidities compared with SAVR patients. Despite similar baseline LVEF (34±11% versus 34±10%), TAVI patients had better recovery of LVEF compared with SAVR patients (ΔLVEF, 14±15% versus 7±11%; P =0.005). At the 1-year follow-up, 58% of TAVI patients had a normalization of LVEF (>50%) as opposed to 20% in the SAVR group. On multivariable analysis, female gender ( P =0.004), lower LVEF at baseline ( P =0.005), absence of atrial fibrillation ( P =0.01), TAVI ( P =0.007), and larger increase in aortic valve area after the procedure ( P =0.01) were independently associated with better recovery of LVEF. Conclusion—: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and depressed LV systolic function, TAVI is associated with better LVEF recovery compared with SAVR. TAVI may provide an interesting alternative to SAVR in patients with depressed LV systolic function considered at high surgical risk.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circulationaha.109.929893

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 304

Metadata

Authors
Clavel, M. A., Webb, J. G., Rodés-Cabau, J., Masson, J. B., Dumont, E., De Larochellière, R., Doyle, D., Bergeron, S., Baumgartner, H., Burwash, I. G., Dumesnil, J. G., Mundigler, G., Moss, R., Kempny, A., Bagur, R., Bergler-Klein, J., Gurvitch, R., Mathieu, P., & Pibarot, P.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2010-11-09
Volume
122
Issue
19
Pages
1928-1936
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2035507842
Cited by
304
References
2
FWCI
23.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison Between Transcatheter and Surgical Prosthetic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.109.929893
The paper
Clavel, M. A., Webb, J. G., Rodés-Cabau, J., Masson, J. B., Dumont, E., De Larochellière, R., Doyle, D., Bergeron, S., Baumgartner, H., Burwash, I. G., Dumesnil, J. G., Mundigler, G., Moss, R., Kempny, A., Bagur, R., Bergler-Klein, J., Gurvitch, R., Mathieu, P., & Pibarot, P. (2010). Comparison Between Transcatheter and Surgical Prosthetic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.929893

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.