SynthesisArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2019
Comparison of Biological and Mechanical Prostheses for Heart Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prognosis and Characteristics Associated with Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis: Insights from a Brazilian Study.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022Article
- Combining portable coagulometers with the Internet: A new model of warfarin anticoagulation in patients following mechanical heart valve replacement.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Tricuspid Valve Repair with Autologous Pericardium in a Patient with Infective Endocarditis.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2021Article
- The Top 10 Original Articles Published in the Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia and in the Revista Portuguesa de Cardiologia in 2019.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
- How to Choose the Right Valve Prosthesis for My Patient?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) for patients with valvular heart disease undergoing replacement is still not a consensus.
objectiveWe aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of MP or BP placement in those patients.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biological prostheses and mechanical prostheses in patients with valvular heart diseases and assessed the outcomes. RCTs were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science (from inception to November 2014) databases. Meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance with random effects models. The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A P-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsA total of four RCTs were included in the meta-analyses (1,528 patients) with follow up ranging from 2 to 20 years. Three used old generation mechanical and biological prostheses, and one used contemporary prostheses. No significant difference in mortality was found between BP and MP patients (risk ratio (RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.15). The risk of bleeding was significantly lower in BP patients than MP patients (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.78); however, reoperations were significantly more frequent in BP patients (RR = 3.60; 95% CI 2.44-5.32). There were no statistically significant differences between BP and MP patients with respect to systemic arterial embolisms and infective endocarditis (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.66-1.31, RR = 1.21; CI95% 0.78-1.88, respectively). Results in the trials with modern and old prostheses were similar.
conclusionsThe mortality rate and the risk of thromboembolic events and endocarditis were similar between BP and MP patients. The risk of bleeding was approximately one third lower for BP patients than for MP patients, while the risk of reoperations was more than three times higher for BP patients.
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.