ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2020
Bioprosthetic or mechanical heart valves: prosthesis choice for borderline patients?-Results from 9,616 cases recorded in Polish national cardiac surgery registry.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. 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.
- Individualized Selection of Valve Intervention Strategies in Aortic Disease Is Key for Better Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of four aortic bioprostheses: Hancock IIJournal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Middle-Aged Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Review
- Long-term survival following postoperative myocardial infraction after coronary artery bypass surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Early experience with the ThopazKardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn middle-aged patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), the selection of prosthesis type is a complex process. Current guidelines do not unequivocally indicate the type of prosthesis (bioprosthetic or mechanical) recommended for patients between 60-70 years of age. The aim of the study was to present the trends in AVR prosthesis selection in borderline patients over a 10-year period, based on real-life registry data.
methodsThe study population comprised of 9,616 consecutive patients aged between 60-70 years, who underwent isolated AVR between 2006 and 2016 in all cardiac surgery departments in Poland. Data were extracted from the Polish National Registry of Cardiac Surgery.
resultsAmong 27,797 consecutive AVR procedures, patients aged 60-70 years represented 34.6% of the population operated on. From 2006 to 2016, bioprosthetic valves (BVs) were implanted in 53.9% cases, (and) mechanical valves (MVs) in 42.1%. The proportion of different valve types changed in time: from 77.5% of MVs
conclusionsPatients aged 60-70 years represent more than one-third of all AVR patients. Between 2006 and 2016, the proportion of implanted prostheses has changed dramatically. In 2016 BVs were implanted in nearly 75% of AVR cases, three times more often than in 2006.
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.