ArticleThe Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2018
Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: Revisiting prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years old.
Article in The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.
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
27 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modes of Leaflet Fluttering: Quantitative Characterization of a Bovine Bioprosthetic Heart Valve.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Individualized Selection of Valve Intervention Strategies in Aortic Disease Is Key for Better Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- The choice of surgical aortic valve replacement type and mid-term outcomes in 50 to 65-year-olds: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Age-Related Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Structural Valve Deterioration.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Multicenter, propensity-weighted comparison of stented, rapid-deployment and new-generation aortic valves.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2024Article
- Differences between valve types in anatomic changes of the aortic root after surgical aortic valve replacement.JTCVS techniques · 2024Article
- Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- Long-term outcomes of the BalMedic bovine pericardial bioprosthetic valve in female patients ≤50 years: a multicenter retrospective study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Revisiting aortic valve prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years: 10 years results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024Article
- Aortic Valve Replacement in the Era of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: Current Status in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Article
- Microaxial pump-assisted Ross Procedure: Young adults with aortic valve disease and ventricular dysfunction.JTCVS techniques · 2023Article
- Aortic Valve Replacement in Adult Patients with Decellularized Homografts: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 70 Years: Mechanical or Bioprosthetic Valve? A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- One-year clinical outcomes following Edwards INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve implantation in 487 young patients with severe aortic stenosis: a single-center experience.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Trends in SAVR with biological vs. mechanical valves in middle-aged patients: results from a French large multi-centric survey.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Biological Surgical Options in Young Patients for the Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis: Is the Jury Still Out? A Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 years old and younger: Structural valve deterioration at long-term follow-up. Retrospective study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Article
- Late Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement with Bioprosthesis and Mechanical Prosthesis.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Observational
- Biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in non-elderly patients: a single-centre analysis of clinical outcomes and quality of life.Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byDiscussion.2018
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAortic prosthesis choice is controversial in young adults because robust comparative outcome data are lacking. We therefore compared mortality and morbidity in young adults after bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement.
methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of 5111 patients aged 18 to 50 years undergoing primary aortic valve replacement in California and New York State from 1997 to 2006. Median follow-up time was 11.8 years (maximum 18.9 years). The primary endpoint was mortality; secondary endpoints were stroke, bleeding, and reoperation. Propensity score matching yielded 1175 patient pairs.
resultsBioprosthetic valves increased from 14% to 47% of aortic valve replacements between 1997 and 2014 (P < .001). There was no survival difference with bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valves in the propensity score-matched cohort: actuarial 15-year survival was 79.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.8%-81.8%) versus 81.5% (95% CI, 78.5%-84.2%) respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% CI, 0.93-1.40, P = .20). No interaction was found between age and prosthesis choice on survival (P
conclusionsAlthough lifetime risks are represented incompletely, these findings suggest that in adults aged 18-50 years, bioprostheses are a reasonable alternative to mechanical valves for aortic valve replacement.
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.