Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34610175›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiac surgery2021

Comparison of a new bioprosthetic mitral valve to other commercially available devices under controlled conditions in a porcine model.

Dee Dee Wang, Thomas G Caranasos, Brian P O'Neill, Richard S Stack, William W O'Neill, W Randolph Chitwood

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cardiac surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Early Haemodynamic Performance and Clinical Outcomes of a Novel Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025
    Article
  3. CT Imaging for Valvular Interventions.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Comparative differences of mitral valve-in-valve implantation: A new mitral bioprosthesis versus current mosaic and epic valves.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Dee Dee WangCardiovascular Masters Consortium, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5784-9924
Thomas G CaranasosCardiovascular Masters Consortium, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Brian P O'NeillCardiovascular Masters Consortium, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Richard S StackCardiovascular Masters Consortium, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
William W O'NeillCardiovascular Masters Consortium, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
W Randolph ChitwoodCardiovascular Masters Consortium, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Henry Ford Hospital · USDuke University · USEast Carolina University · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Edwards Lifesciences Corp to Synchrony Labs
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimTo evaluate three mitral bioprostheses (of comparable measured internal diameters) under controlled, stable, hemodynamic and surgical conditions by bench, echocardiographic, computerized tomography and autopsy comparisons pre- and postvalve implantation.

methodsFifteen similar-sized Yorkshire pigs underwent preprocedural computerized tomography anatomic screening. Of these, 12 had consistent anatomic features and underwent implantation of a mitral bioprosthesis via thoracotomy on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Four valves from each of three manufacturers were implanted in randomized fashion: 27-mm Epic, 27-mm Mosaic, and 25-mm Mitris bioprostheses. After CPB, epicardial echocardiographic studies were performed to assess hemodynamic function and define any paravalvular leaks, followed by postoperative gated contrast computerized tomography. After euthanasia, animals underwent necropsy for anatomic evaluation.

resultsAll 12 animals had successful valve implantation with no study deaths. Postoperative echocardiographic trans-valve gradients varied among bioprosthesis manufacturers. The 25-mm Mitris (5.1 ± 2.7)/(2.6 ± 1.3 torr) had the lowest peak/mean gradient and the 27-mm Epic bioprosthesis had the highest (9.2 ± 3.7)/(4.6 ± 1.9 torr). Surgical valve opening area (SOA) varied with the 25-mm Mitris having the largest SOA (2.4 ± 0.15 cm

conclusionsCurrent advertisement/packaging of commercial surgical mitral valves is not uniform. This study demonstrates marked variations in hemodynamics, valve opening area and anatomic dimensions between similar sized mitral bioprostheses. These data suggest a critical need for standardization and close scientific evaluation of surgical mitral bioprostheses to ensure optimal clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

BioprosthesisHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationAnimalsAortic ValveHemodynamicsMitral ValveProsthesis DesignSwineepicleft ventricular outflow tractmitralmitrismosaicvalve repair/replacement

Identifiers

PMID34610175
PMCPMC9292040
OpenAlexW3204724133

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.