ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2017
Initial Experience with Aortic Valve Replacement via a Minimally Invasive Approach: A Comparison of Stented, Stentless and Sutureless Valves.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional Prostheses versus Sutureless Perceval for Aortic Valve Replacement: A Meta-Analysis.Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia · 2023Pooled it
- Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement.Journal of cardiac surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Conventional vs. Sutureless Aortic Valve Bioprosthesis: Is Faster Better?Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Surgical treatment of infective endocarditis in the era of minimally invasive cardiac surgery and transcatheter approach: an editorial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of MIS-AVR among 3 different types of biological heart valves. MATERIAL AND METHODS Complete data were obtained from 79 patients who underwent MIS-AVR between January 2010 and June 2015. Patients were divided into 3 groups: 27 patients (group A) received Medtronic 3f® (Medtronic Inc., Fridley, MN, USA), 36 patients (group B) received DokimosPlus® (LabCor Laboratórios Ltda., Belo Horizonte, Brazil) and 16 patients (group C) received Perceval® (Sorin Biomedica Cardio S.r.l., Saluggia VC, Italy) valves. Operative and postoperative parameters such as duration of operation, bypass time, duration of ventilation, morbidity, and mortality were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Hemodynamic assessment with transthoracic echocardiography was performed before discharge. RESULTS The EuroSCORE II ranged between 0.67 and 6.94 with no significant difference between the groups. The median operative time was 166 min (range 90-230 min) in total, with significantly shorter times in group C (120 min [range 90-200]). The median total ventilation time was significantly lower in group C and significantly higher in group A. Hemodynamic evaluation demonstrated a mean maximal velocity (vmax) over the aortic valve of 2.3 m/s (range 0.9-4.3 m/s) with average mean and peak pressure gradient values of 10 mmHg (range 3-24 mmHg) and 20 mmHg (range 5-42 mmHg), respectively. Group A showed the highest values for vmax (H>5.99). No significant difference was found regarding duration of hospitalization. Mortality was 3%. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, all 3 valves showed good perioperative results, satisfying hemodynamic performance, and low complication rates.
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.