Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34843639›Full record

ArticleCatheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions2022

Comparative differences of mitral valve-in-valve implantation: A new mitral bioprosthesis versus current mosaic and epic valves.

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

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CT Imaging for Valvular Interventions.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
  3. 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
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 0000-0002-5784-9924
Brian P O'NeillCardiovascular Masters Consortium, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Thomas G CaranasosCardiovascular Masters Consortium, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
W Randolph ChitwoodCardiovascular 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.
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

objectiveEvaluate transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) valve-in-valve (VIV) outcomes in three different mitral bioprostheses (of comparable measured internal diameters) under stable hemodynamic and surgical conditions by bench, echocardiographic, computerized tomography (CT), and autopsy comparisons pre- and post-valve implantation in a porcine model under matched controlled conditions.

backgroundImpact of surgical bioprosthesis design on TMVR VIV procedures is unknown.

methodsFifteen similar-sized Yorkshire pigs underwent pre-procedural CT screening. Twelve had consistent anatomic features and underwent implantation of mitral bioprostheses. Four valves from each of three manufacturers were implanted in randomized fashion: 27-mm Epic, 27-mm Mosaic, and 25-mm Mitris, followed by TMVR VIV with 26 Edwards Sapien3. Post-VIV, suprasternal TEE studies were performed to assess hemodynamic function, followed by a gated contrast CT. After euthanasia, animals underwent necropsy for anatomic evaluation.

resultsAll 12 animals had successful VIV implantation with no study deaths. The post vivMitris (3.77 ± 0.36)/(2.2 ± 0.25 mmHg) had the lowest peak/mean trans-mitral gradient and the vivEpic the highest (15.5 ± 2.55)/(7.09 ± 1.13 mmHg). All THVs (transcatheter heart valves) had greatest deformation within the center of the THV frame; with the smallest waist opening area in the vivEpic (329 ± 35.8 mm

conclusionsThe current study demonstrates marked variations in hemodynamics, THV opening area, and anatomic dimensions among measured similarly sized mitral bioprostheses. These data suggest a critical need for understanding the potential impact of variations in bioprosthesis design on TMVR VIV clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

BioprosthesisHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationAnimalsHumansMitral ValveProsthesis DesignProsthesis FailureSwineTreatment Outcomecomputed tomographyleft ventricular outflow tracttranscatheter mitral valve replacement

Identifiers

PMID34843639
PMCPMC9543650
OpenAlexW3214825026

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.