ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2020
Prosthesis selection for aortic valve replacement in patients on hemodialysis.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves in chronic dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgiePooled it
- Surgical outcomes of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement via right mini-thoracotomy for hemodialysis patients.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2022Article
- Valve positions upon which cardiac surgeons operate should be taken into consideration.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieArticle
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
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of prosthesis selection in hemodialysis patients undergoing valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis.
methodsFrom July 2008 to December 2016, 76 patients on hemodialysis underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis. Of these patients, 30 patients were treated by a mechanical valve and 46 patients were treated by a bioprosthesis. Early outcomes and long-term outcomes were compared.
resultsThe mean age of the patients treated by a mechanical valve was younger than the patients treated by a bioprosthesis (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (p = 0.52). For the long-term outcomes, complications associated with bleeding were higher in patients who received a mechanical valve (p = 0.032). However, no significant difference was observed in mortality (p = 0.65) and major adverse cardiovascular cerebrovascular event (MACCE: p = 0.59). The actuarial survival rate with a mechanical valve was 56.7% (95% CI 36.4-72.8%) at 3 years and 48.6% (95% CI 28.9-65.8%) at 5 years. The actuarial survival rate with a bioprosthesis was 61.2% (95% CI 44.0-74.5%) at 3 years and 39.5% (95% CI 20.9-57.8%) at 5 years. No patients from both groups needed redo surgery for valvular deterioration. Further, there was no significant difference in long-term mortality (p = 0.91) and MACCE (p = 0.63) in a propensity score-matched patient comparison.
conclusionsAlthough bleeding complications were higher in patients who received a mechanical valve, there were no significant differences in early- and long-term mortality, and MACCE between patients treated by a mechanical valve and a bioprosthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31280413What 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.