ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
What Can We Learn from the Past by Means of Very Long-Term Follow-Up after Aortic Valve Replacement?
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStudies on very long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement are sparse.
methodsIn this retrospective cohort study, long-term outcomes during 25.1 ± 2.8 years of follow-up were determined in 673 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery for severe aortic stenosis and/or regurgitation. Independent predictors of decreased long-term survival were determined. Cumulative incidence rates of major adverse events in patients with a mechanical versus those with a biologic prosthesis were assessed, as well as of major bleeding events in patients with a mechanical prosthesis under the age of 60 versus those above the age of 60.
resultsImpaired left ventricular function, severe prosthesis-patient mismatch, and increased aortic cross-clamp time were independent predictors of decreased long-term survival. Left ventricular hypertrophy, a mechanical or biologic prosthesis, increased cardiopulmonary bypass time, new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation, and the presence of symptoms did not independently predict decreased long-term survival. The risk of major bleeding events was higher in patients with a mechanical in comparison with those with a biologic prosthesis. Younger age (under 60 years) did not protect patients with a mechanical prosthesis against major bleeding events.
conclusionsVery long-term outcome data are invaluable for careful decision-making on aortic valve replacement.
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.