ArticleHSR proceedings in intensive care & cardiovascular anesthesia2012
Stented bioprostheses in aortic position.
Article in HSR proceedings in intensive care & cardiovascular anesthesia, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Stented vs. stentless in aortic stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Prosthetic Heart Valves: More than Half a Century of Innovation-An Overview.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Pregnancy outcome and follow-up cardiac outcome in women with aortic valve replacement.Obstetric medicine · 2014Article
- When expert opinion does matter...HSR proceedings in intensive care & cardiovascular anesthesia · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBiological stented prostheses are currently the main type of prosthetic valve used for aortic valve replacement. The ratio of bioprotheses to mechanical prostheses has switched in the last 15 years; the percentage of biological prostheses implanted has risen from 30 % to 85 %. Moreover the total number of implanted stented bioprostheses remained stable over the last years despite competing procedures like stentless prostheses or transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
methodsA literature search of all published aortic valve replacement studies was performed from January 2000 through May 2012.
resultsThe recommendations guiding the type of heart valve replacement have been revised in recent years. Of particular interest are the new generation of biological prostheses with extended durability, a decrease in mortality of reoperation and an increase in life expectancy. Comorbidities such as chronic renal insufficiency or chronic atrial fibrillation are no longer contraindications to bioprostheses.
conclusionOverall, even in face of more innovative biological alternatives the implantation of stented bioprostheses is still a very interesting option and represents actually the most frequent valve implantation technique for aortic stenosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23439380PMC3484933W2112393721What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.