Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22988539›Full record

ArticleCardiology research and practice2012

Ascending aortic wall cohesion: comparison of bicuspid and tricuspid valves.

Jaroslav Benedik, Kevin Pilarczyk, Daniel Wendt, Jiri Indruch, Radek Flek, Konstantinos Tsagakis, Savvas Alaeddine, Heinz Jakob

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiology research and practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jaroslav BenedikDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, West-German Heart Center, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstraße 55, 45147 Essen, Germany.
Kevin Pilarczyk
Daniel Wendt
Jiri Indruch
Radek Flek
Konstantinos Tsagakis
Savvas Alaeddine
Heinz Jakob
University of Duisburg-Essen · DEOprox (Czechia) · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives. Bicuspid aortic valve (AV) represents the most common form of congenital AV malformation, which is frequently associated with pathologies of the ascending aorta. We compared the mechanical properties of the aortic wall between patients with bicuspid and tricuspid AV using a new custom-made device mimicking transversal aortic wall shear stress. Methods. Between 03/2010 and 07/2011, 190 consecutive patients undergoing open aortic valve replacement at our institution were prospectively enrolled, presenting either with a bicuspid (group 1, n = 44) or a tricuspid (group 2, n = 146) AV. Aortic wall specimen were examined with the "dissectometer" resulting in nine specific aortic-wall parameters derived from tensile strength curves (TSC). Results. Patients with a bicuspid AV showed significantly more calcified valves (43.2% versus 15.8%, P < 0.001), and a significantly thinner aortic wall (2.04 ± 0.42 mm versus 2.24 ± 0.41 mm, P = 0.008). Transesophageal echocardiography diameters (annulus, aortic sinuses, and sinotubular junction) were significantly larger in the bicuspid group (P = 0.003, P = 0.02, P = 0.01). We found no difference in the aortic wall cohesion between both groups as revealed by shear stress testing (P = 0.72, P = 0.40, P = 0.41). Conclusion. We observed no differences of TSC in patients presenting with tricuspid or bicuspid AVs. These results may allow us to assume that the morphology of the AV and the pathology of the ascending aorta are independent.

Identifiers

PMID22988539
PMCPMC3441012
OpenAlexW1986460735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.