ReviewCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2018
Surgical Treatment of Valvular Heart Disease: Overview of Mechanical and Tissue Prostheses, Advantages, Disadvantages, and Implications for Clinical Use.
Review in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardiovascular stent technologies for coronary and valvular heart disease: the potential of 3D printing for stent fabrication.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2026Review
- Impact of leaflet stiffness in aortic valve neocuspidization in ex vivo biomechanical simulation.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Individualized Selection of Valve Intervention Strategies in Aortic Disease Is Key for Better Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- A chronological history of heart valve prostheses to offer perspectives of their limitations.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Bioprosthetic heart valve structural degeneration associated with metabolic syndrome: Mitigation with polyoxazoline modification.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Infrared Spectroscopic Verification of a α-Helical Collagen Structure in Glutaraldehyde-Free Crosslinked Bovine Pericardium for Cardiac Implants.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Hemocompatibile Thin Films Assessed under Blood Flow Shear Forces.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Natural Polymers in Heart Valve Tissue Engineering: Strategies, Advances and Challenges.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Hydrodynamic Noise of Pulsating Jets through Bileaflet Mechanical Mitral Valve.BioMed research international · 2020Article
- Tissue Valve Degeneration and Mechanical Valve Failure.Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine · 2019Review
- After 50 Years of Heart Transplants: What Does the Next 50 Years Hold for Cardiovascular Medicine? A Perspective From the International Society for Applied Cardiovascular Biology.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2019Article
- The Structural Complexity and Animal Tissue Distribution ofFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2019Review
- Fibrinolytic Therapy in Thrombosis of Mechanical Valves: Outcomes and Complications.ARYA atherosclerosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Valvular heart disease (VHD) affects a large number of patients annually. From a surgical standpoint, there are two primary options for valve replacement: mechanical or bioprosthetic. While there are clear advantages and disadvantages to either option, and recent literature does challenge some of the prior dictums of valve choice, a handful of absolutes remain true. Mechanical valves provide superior durability and freedom from re-operation when compared to their bioprosthetic counterparts, at the expense of bleeding or thrombotic complications associated with the need for lifelong oral anticoagulation. Unless a clear contraindication to oral anticoagulation exists, we recommend implanting mechanical valves for patients less than 60 years old and those who are older than 65 but maintained on anticoagulation for reasons other than their valvular disease. Bioprosthetic valves should be placed in patients who are greater than 65 years old or those patients who have a postoperative life expectancy of less than 10 years. Valve choice in patients between the ages of 60 to 70 is not dictated by guidelines and is less clear, with patient preference playing a larger role than their age range.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29404788What 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.