ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2021
Clinico-pathological classification of rheumatic mitral valve damage and surgical strategy.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors associated with recurrence of mitral regurgitation 14 days after rheumatic mitral valve repair.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Short and mid-term effects of modified release technique in rheumatic mitral valve repair.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a lack of established pathological indications for rheumatic valve repair. Therefore, we summarized the pathological classifications of rheumatic heart diseases and their correlations with the surgical strategies.
methodsThis observational study enrolled patients with rheumatic heart diseases who underwent mitral valve repair (MVP) or replacement at our centre between January 2017 and January 2019. Mitral leaflet, mitral commissural, and sub-valvular apparatus were classified into three grades from mild to severe, according to their degree of pathological damage. Based on certain principles and the grade of mitral leaflet, mitral commissural, and sub-valvular apparatus damage, three pathological types were identified (types I to III), based on which all patients were classified. The features of each pathological type were summarised. Differences between the three pathological types were analysed using chi-square test of tendency. These data were used to propose a clinico-pathological classification of rheumatic mitral valve damage in Chinese patients.
resultsOf 398 patients, 284 (70%) underwent MVP for rheumatic mitral valve diseases. There were 58 type I (15%) patients in the study, all of whom underwent repair (repair rate, 100%). Preoperative moderate-to-severe regurgitation with mild pathological lesions was observed in 64% of these patients. In 260 type II (65%) patients, the repair rate was 76% (197/260); preoperative moderate-to-severe stenosis was observed in 88% of these patients. In 80 type III (20%) patients, the repair rate was 36% (29/80); the preoperative rates of extremely severe stenosis and moderate-to-severe regurgitation in these patients were 50% and 40%, respectively. Several preoperative parameters show the change in trend with the increase in the pathological classification severity.
conclusionsOur clinico-pathological classification of rheumatic mitral valve damage is applicable to MVP. Considering that the classification principles are based on the possibility of mitral repair, it provides a phased and achievable target ratio for MVP and a principle of screening patients who should undergo rheumatic MVP.
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.