Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33686870›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2021

Reoperative Mitral Surgery Versus Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review.

Aditya Sengupta, Farhang Yazdchi, Sophia L Alexis, Edward Percy, Akash Premkumar, Sameer Hirji, Vinayak N Bapat, Deepak L Bhatt, Tsuyoshi Kaneko, Gilbert H L Tang

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease.EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Aditya SenguptaDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery Mount Sinai Hospital New York NY.
Farhang YazdchiDivision of Cardiac Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA.
Sophia L AlexisDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery Mount Sinai Hospital New York NY.
Edward PercyDivision of Cardiac Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA.
Akash PremkumarDivision of Cardiac Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA.
Sameer HirjiDivision of Cardiac Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA.
Vinayak N BapatMinneapolis Heart Institute Foundation Minneapolis MN.
Deepak L BhattBrigham and Women's Heart & Vascular CenterHarvard Medical School Boston MA.
Tsuyoshi KanekoDivision of Cardiac Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA.
Gilbert H L TangDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery Mount Sinai Hospital New York NY.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bioprosthetic mitral structural valve degeneration and failed mitral valve repair (MVr) have traditionally been treated with reoperative mitral valve surgery. Transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve (MVIV) and valve-in-ring (MVIR) replacement are now feasible, but data comparing these approaches are lacking. We sought to compare the outcomes of (1) reoperative mitral valve replacement (redo-MVR) and MVIV for structural valve degeneration, and (2) reoperative mitral valve repair (redo-MVr) or MVR and MVIR for failed MVr. A literature search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted up to July 31, 2020. Thirty-two studies involving 25 832 patients were included. Redo-MVR was required in ≈35% of patients after index surgery at 10 years, with 5% to 15% 30-day mortality. MVIV resulted in >95% procedural success with 30-day and 1-year mortality of 0% to 8% and 11% to 16%, respectively. Recognized complications included left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (0%-6%), valve migration (0%-9%), and residual regurgitation (0%-6%). Comparisons of redo-MVR and MVIV showed no statistically significant differences in mortality (11.3% versus 11.9% at 1 year,

Indexed as

Heart Valve ProsthesisCardiac CatheterizationHeart Valve DiseasesHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansMitral ValveReoperationredo mitral valve repairreoperative mitral valve replacementtranscatheter mitral valve replacementvalve‐in‐ringvalve‐in‐valve

Identifiers

PMID33686870
PMCPMC8174229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.