Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32832408›Full record

ArticleAnnals of cardiothoracic surgery2020

Long-term outcomes of sutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Michael L Williams, Campbell D Flynn, Andrew A Mamo, David H Tian, Utz Kappert, Manuel Wilbring, Thierry Folliguet, Antonio Fiore, Antonio Miceli, Augusto D'Onofrio and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of cardiothoracic surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Use of Sutureless and Rapid Deployment Prostheses in Challenging Reoperations.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Michael L WilliamsDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
Campbell D FlynnThe Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Andrew A MamoDepartment of Cardiology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
David H TianThe Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Utz KappertDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University Heart Center Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Manuel WilbringDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, University Heart Center Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
Thierry FolliguetDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Henri Mondor University Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Créteil, France.
Antonio FioreDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Henri Mondor University Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Créteil, France.
Antonio MiceliMinimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery, Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio, Milano, Italy.
Augusto D'OnofrioDivision of Cardiac Surgery, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Giorgia CibinDivision of Cardiac Surgery, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Gino GerosaDivision of Cardiac Surgery, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Mattia GlauberMinimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Department, Istituto Clinico Sant'Ambrogio - Gruppo San Donato, Milano, Italy.
Theodor FischleinCardiac Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University - Klinikum Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
Francesco PollariCardiac Surgery, Paracelsus Medical University - Klinikum Nürnberg, Nuremberg, Germany.
Royal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCollaborative Research Group · AUMacquarie University · AUPrince of Wales Hospital · AUUniversity of Padua · ITWestmead Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSutureless and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (SURD-AVR) has become a prominent area of research as the medical community evaluate its place amongst other aortic valve interventions. The main advantages of SURD-AVR established to date are the reduced cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times, as well as facilitating minimally invasive surgery in high-risk surgical patients. This current systematic review and meta-analysis, to our knowledge, is the first focusing on long-term outcomes regarding safety, efficacy and durability of SURD-AVR from available current literature.

methodsA literature search via six electronic databases was performed from their inception to November 2019. Inclusion criteria for this systematic review included survival and postoperative echocardiographic outcomes greater than five years in patients who underwent SURD-AVR with either Perceval or Intuity valves. Studies were identified and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Long-term survival outcomes were aggregated using digitized Kaplan-Meier curves where available.

resultsAfter applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, four studies were identified for review. All four studies were observational and in total reported data for 1,998 patients. Almost half (42.4%) of patients underwent SURD-AVR via full sternotomy, with almost one third (30.1%) also undergoing concomitant cardiac procedures. Aggregate overall survival rates at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year follow-up were 94.9%, 91.2%, 89.0%, and 84.2%, respectively. Incidence of strokes (4.8%), severe paravalvular leaks (PVLs) (1.5%) and permanent pacemaker (PPM) insertion (8.2%) at up to 5-year follow-up were acceptable. At 5-year follow-up hemodynamic outcomes were also acceptable for mean pressure gradient (MPG) (range, 8.8-13.6 mmHg), peak pressure gradient (PPG) (range, 18.9-21.1 mmHg) and effective orifice area (EOA) (range, 1.5-1.8 cm

conclusionsEvaluation of the evidence reporting long-term outcomes of SURD-AVR suggests that it is a safe procedure for AVR with low rates of complications. Long-term outcomes presented in this review show that not only does SURD-AVR have acceptable survival rates, but also good hemodynamic performance at 5-year follow-up.

Indexed as

aortic valve replacement (AVR)rapid-deploymentSuturelesssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32832408
PMCPMC7415693
OpenAlexW3029529980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.