ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2021
Comparison of the effective orifice area of prosthetic mitral valves using two-dimensional versus three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiography.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Impact of Computational Heart Valve Models.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Comparison of a new bioprosthetic mitral valve to other commercially available devices under controlled conditions in a porcine model.Journal of cardiac 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study compared the continuity equation-based effective orifice area (EOA) of prosthetic mitral valves between two-dimensional (2D) and 3D transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).
methodsThirty-four patients without major aortic valve abnormalities underwent mitral valve replacement surgery. The EOAs of prosthetic mitral valves were calculated using the continuity equation with 2D and 3D TEE. For 18/34 patients using a biological valve prosthesis, the EOA of the prosthesis was obtained from commercial records.
resultsThe EOA of prosthetic mitral valves significantly varied between the 2D and 3D methods (2.22 ± 0.71 vs 2.35 ± 0.70 cm
conclusionsThe EOA of prosthetic mitral valves is underestimated using the 2D TEE method compared with the 3D TEE method. The 3D-TEE method has the advantage of higher precision over the 2D TEE method, and it may be helpful for better assessment of prosthetic mitral valves intraoperatively.
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.