ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2021
Comparison of safety and haemodynamic performance between the Avalus™ stented aortic valve bioprosthesis and Magna™ valve in Japanese patients.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- VITTA TRIAL - safety and performance at 3-year follow-up after implantation of the VIVERE® aortic bioprosthesis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Smaller Bioprosthetic Valves May Be Associated with Worse Clinical Outcomes and Reduced Freedom from Reoperation in sAVR.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA new stented bovine pericardial valve (Avalus™) has been proven safe and effective with good hemodynamic performance in Western populations. However, its use in Japanese patients is poorly understood. We retrospectively compared the feasibility, safety, and valve haemodynamics between the Avalus™ and Magna™ valves in patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).
methodsThis study included 87 patients receiving an Avalus™ valve and 387 receiving a Magna™ valve. We evaluated adverse events, outcomes, and valve haemodynamics within 1 year postoperatively. There were no significant differences in any surgical risk scores.
resultsNo in-hospital mortality occurred in the Avalus™ group, but two mortality events occurred in the Magna™ group. No pacemaker implantation for complete atrioventricular block was required in the Avalus™ group. There was no significant difference in in-hospital or clinical outcomes between the two groups until 1 year postoperatively. Left ventricular mass index reduction appeared to predominate in the Avalus™ over Magna™ group. There was no significant difference in the mean pressure gradient or effective orifice area of each valve size at 1 week or 1 year between the two groups, apart from the mean pressure gradient of the 23-mm valve at 1 week. Three patients (3.4%) in the Avalus™ group and 39 (10.8%) in the Magna™ group (p = 0.12) had severe patient-prosthesis mismatch at 1 week postoperatively.
conclusionsThe new Avalus™ stented aortic valve bioprosthesis was associated with good in-hospital outcomes and good valve functionality post-SAVR in Japanese patients.
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.