ArticleSurgery today2017
Hospital cost savings and other advantages of sutureless vs stented aortic valves for intermediate-risk elderly patients.
Article in Surgery today, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- Sutureless aortic valve replacement in high risk patients neutralizes expected worse hospital outcome: A clinical and economic analysis.Cardiology journal · 2019Article
- Cost-utility of surgical sutureless bioprostheses vs TAVI in aortic valve replacement for patients at intermediate and high surgical risk.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and hospital costs of using sutureless aortic valves vs conventional stented aortic valves.
methodsBetween 2007 and 2011, 52 elderly patients undergoing aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis in our center had a sutureless valve inserted. From among 180 patients who had a stented valve inserted during the same period, 52 patients were matched to the sutureless group, based on age, gender, and operation type. We compared clinical outcomes and hospital costs between the two groups.
resultsThe sutureless group had a higher Euroscore (logistic Euroscore I) risk (12.8 vs 9.7; p = 0.02), with significantly shorter aortic cross-clamp (ACC) time (p < 0.01), cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time (p < 0.01), intensive care unit stay (p < 0.01), intubation time (p < 0.01), and overall hospital stay (p = 0.05). The sutureless group also revealed a significant hospital cost saving of approximately 8200€ (p = 0.01).
conclusionsThe clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of using the sutureless bioprosthesis were excellent. The reduced ACC and CPB times had a favorable effect on the duration of intubation and intensive care stay, resulting not only in faster recovery and discharge home, but also in a significant hospital cost reduction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28386747What 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.