Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31838974›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2019

Long-Term Comparison Between Pulmonary Homograft Versus Bioprosthesis for Pulmonary Valve Replacement in Tetralogy of Fallot.

Lucia Cocomello, Marco Meloni, Filippo Rapetto, Mai Baquedano, Maria Victoria Ordoñez, Giovanni Biglino, Chiara Bucciarelli-Ducci, Andrew Parry, Serban Stoica, Massimo Caputo

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Evolution of pulmonary artery reconstruction techniques: a focus on the neovalve from the right atrial appendage.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lucia CocomelloBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
Marco MeloniBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
Filippo RapettoBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
Mai BaquedanoBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
Maria Victoria OrdoñezBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
Giovanni BiglinoBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
Chiara Bucciarelli-DucciBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
Andrew ParryBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
Serban StoicaBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
Massimo CaputoBristol Heart Institute University Hospitals Bristol National Health Service Foundation Trust Bristol United Kingdom.
National Health Service · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/17/1/32804British Heart Foundation PG/15/33/31394
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Tetralogy of Fallot repair results in late occurrence of pulmonary regurgitation, which requires pulmonary valve replacement in a large proportion of patients. Both homografts and bioprostheses are used for pulmonary valve replacement as uncertainty remains on which prosthesis should be considered superior. We performed a long-term imaging and clinical comparison between these 2 strategies. Methods and Results We compared echocardiographic and clinical follow-up data of 209 patients with previous tetralogy of Fallot repair who underwent pulmonary valve replacement with homograft (n=75) or bioprosthesis (n=134) between 1995 and 2018 at a tertiary hospital. The primary end point was the composite of pulmonary valve replacement reintervention and structural valve deterioration, defined as a transpulmonary pressure decrease ≥50 mm Hg or pulmonary regurgitation degree of ≥2. Mixed linear model and Cox regression model were used for comparisons. Echocardiographic follow-up duration was longer in the homograft group (8 [interquartile range, 4-12] versus 4 [interquartile range, 3-6] years;

Indexed as

BioprosthesisHeart Valve ProsthesisAdolescentAdultChildEchocardiographyFemaleHumansMalePulmonary ValveRetrospective StudiesTetralogy of FallotTime FactorsTransplantation, HomologousYoung Adultbioprosthesishomograftpulmonary heart diseaseregurgitationstructural valve degenerationtetralogy of Fallot

Identifiers

PMID31838974
PMCPMC6951084
OpenAlexW2996423596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.