Observational studyBMC cardiovascular disorders2014
Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort.
Observational study in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical or biologic prostheses for mitral valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2022Pooled it
- Outcomes of aortic and mitral valve replacement with Dafodil™ pericardial bioprosthesis over 5-years: Dafodil™-1 trial.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Interdisciplinary Methods for Zoonotic Tissue Acellularization for Natural Heart Valve Substitute of Biomimetic Materials.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Current state of transcatheter mitral valve implantation in bioprosthetic mitral valve and in mitral ring as a treatment approach for failed mitral prosthesis.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2021Review
- Multimodality Cardiac Imaging for Procedural Planning and Guidance of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement and Mitral Paravalvular Leak Closure.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
- Transseptal, Transcatheter Mitral Valve-In-Valve Replacement: Ready for Prime Time Treatment of Bioprosthetic Valve Failure in Brazil?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
- Long-term outcome after mitral valve replacement using biological versus mechanical valves.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2019Article
- Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the utilization and in-hospital outcomes of surgical mitral valve replacement in Spain (2001-2015).Cardiovascular diabetology · 2019Article
- Observational
- Tissue-Engineered Heart Valves: A Call for Mechanistic Studies.Tissue engineering. Part B, Reviews · 2018Article
- The mechanisms, diagnosis and management of mitral regurgitation in mitral valve prolapse and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania) · 2016Review
- A review of outcome following valve surgery for rheumatic heart disease in Australia.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2015Article
- Are anticoagulant independent mechanical valves within reach-fast prototype fabrication and in vitro testing of innovative bi-leaflet valve models.Annals of translational medicine · 2015Article
- Anticoagulation Quality and Complications of using Vitamin K Antagonists in the Cardiac Surgery Outpatient Clinic.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of prosthesis for mitral valve replacement still remains controversial. This study assessed mortality, bleeding events and reoperation in patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery with biological or mechanical substitutes.
methodsA total of 352 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery between 1990 and 2008 with 5 to 23 years of follow-up were retrospectively evaluated in a cohort study.
resultsThe 5, 10, 15 and 20 year survival rates after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 87.7%, 74.2%, 69.3% and 69.3%, respectively, while after surgery with a biological substitute, they were 87.6%, 71.0%, 64.2% and 56.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.38). In the multivariate analysis, the factors associated with death were age, bleeding events and renal failure. The probabilities of remaining free of reoperation at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 94.4%, 92.7%, 92.7% and 92.7%; after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 95.9%, 86.4%, 81.2% and 76.5%, respectively (p = 0.073). There was a significantly higher incidence of reoperation for the bioprosthetic valve replacement group (p = 0.008). The probabilities of remaining free of bleeding events at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 95.0%, 91.0%, 89.6% and 89.6%, respectively, while after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 96.9%, 94.0%, 94.0% and 94.0%, (p = 0.267).
conclusionsThe authors concluded that: 1) mortality during follow-up was statistically similar for both groups; 2) there was a greater tendency to reoperation in the bioprosthesis group; 3) the probability of remaining free from reoperation remained unchanged after 10 years' follow-up for patients with mechanical substitute valves; 4) the probability of remaining fee from bleeding events remained unchanged after 10 years' follow-up for patients given bioprostheses; 5) the baseline characteristics of patients were the greatest determinants of later mortality after surgery; 6) the type of prosthesis was not an independent predictive factor of any of the outcomes tested in the multivariate analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.