Observational studyArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2021
Late Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement with Bioprosthesis and Mechanical Prosthesis.
Observational study in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Revisiting aortic valve prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years: 10 years results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024Article
- A comparison of neurological event and mortality rates between transcatheter aortic valve implantation and surgical aortic valve replacement.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2023Review
- Mechanical Prosthesis X Biological Prosthesis: an Individualized and Shared Decision.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite constant improvement and refinement of the prostheses, the decision between mechanical and biological valves for aortic valve replacement is still controversial.
objectiveTo compare outcomes of aortic valve replacement with bioprosthesis and mechanical prosthesis.
methodsThis was an observational, historical cohort study with review of medical records. A total of 202 patients who underwent heart valve replacement surgery between 2004 and 2008 were selected, with a mean follow-up of 10 years. The level of significance set at 5%.
resultsMean age of patients was approximately 50 years; most patients were male (70%). Overall mortality- and reoperation-free survival was significantly higher in patients with mechanical prosthesis (HR=0.33; 95%CI=0.13-0.79; p=0.013). No difference was found in late mortality between the two groups. On the other hand, the risk of reoperation was significantly higher in patients with bioprosthesis than mechanical prosthesis (HR=0.062; 95%CI=0.008-0.457; p=0.006). The risk of composite adverse events - stroke, bleeding, endocarditis, thrombosis and paravalvular leak - was similar between the groups (HR=1.20; 95%CI= 0.74-1.93; p=0.44). The risk of bleeding was significantly higher in patients with mechanical prosthesis (HR=3.65; 95%CI= 1.43-9.29; p = 0.0064), although no case of fatal bleeding was reported.
conclusionNo difference in 10-year mortality was found between the groups. The risk of reoperation significantly increases with the use of bioprosthesis, especially for patients younger than 30 years. Patients with mechanical prosthesis are at increased risk of nonfatal bleeding.
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.