SynthesisHeart failure reviews2020
A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of heart valve replacement with a mechanical versus biological prosthesis in patients with heart valvular disease.
Synthesis in Heart failure reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of Prevalence and Characteristics of Valvular Heart Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study From Yazd Health Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Polymeric Heart Valves: Do They Represent a Reliable Alternative to Current Prosthetic Devices?Polymers · 2025Review
- New materials and complications of prostheses in humans: situation in Spain.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2024Review
- Polymeric Heart Valves Will Displace Mechanical and Tissue Heart Valves: A New Era for the Medical Devices.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Remote Cardiac Monitoring With the CardioMEMS Heart Failure System: A Systematic Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2023Review
- Adherence, belief, and knowledge about oral anticoagulants in patients with bioprosthetic heart valve replacement: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Article
- Tri-Layered and Gel-Like Nanofibrous Scaffolds with Anisotropic Features for Engineering Heart Valve Leaflets.Advanced healthcare materials · 2022Article
- Article
- On the shape and structure of the murine pulmonary heart valve.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heart valve disease (HVD) affects 2.5% of the US population and one million individuals aged 65 years and older in the UK. Given its burden, the aim of the present review was to assess the cost-effectiveness of heart valve replacement with mechanical versus biological prosthesis in HVD patients. We performed a systematic search in various electronic databases from January 1990 to June 2019. Five out of 542 articles were entered into the study, from which 2 papers were subsequently excluded not meeting the minimum number of items of the CHEERS checklist. Quality-Adjusted Life Year, Life Years Gained, and the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) regarding the type of replaced heart valve were extracted and reported. Studies were conducted in three different countries (Iran, France, and USA). ICER ranged from $1253 in Iran to €54,634 in France. Survival rate of mitral mechanical versus biological valves at 10 and 20 years was 72.9% versus 76.0% and 51% versus 30%, respectively. Survival rate at 20 years in patients undergoing atrial valve replacement was 20%. Ten- and 20-year death rates for biological valves were higher with respect to mechanical prosthesis (15.5% versus 8.4% at 10 years), with this difference becoming more relevant at 20 years (36.9% versus 13.9%). Due to higher ICER, mortality rate, and lower success rates in the long term for biological prostheses compared to mechanical ones, these appear to be more suitable for older patients (aged ≥ 70 years).
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.