ArticlePerfusion2023
Propensity matched analysis of minimally invasive versus conventional isolated aortic valve replacement.
Article in Perfusion, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mini-Sternotomy vs. Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Early Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Right Anterior Thoracotomy vs. Median Full Sternotomy in Isolated Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity Score Analysis.Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the early and mid-term outcome of patients undergoing conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) versus minimally invasive via hemi-sternotomy aortic valve replacement (MIAVR).
methodsA single centre retrospective study involving 653 patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) either via conventional AVR (
resultsThe mean age of the PM conventional AVR group was 71.5 (±8.9) years and the number of male (
conclusionDespite the longer CPB and AoX times in the MIAVR group, there was no significant difference in early complications, mortality and mid-term survival between MIAVR and conventional AVR.
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.