ArticleEuropean journal of clinical investigation2022
Mechanical aortic valve prostheses offer a survival benefit in 50-65 year olds: AUTHEARTVISIT study.
Article in European journal of clinical investigation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- The choice of mitral valve surgery type and mid-term outcomes in patients up to 70 years of age: Results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Alpha-gal xenoantigens in bioprosthetic valve recipients: clinical implications for bioprosthesis longevity.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- The Immunology of Alpha-Gal Syndrome: History, Tick Bites, IgE, and Delayed Anaphylaxis to Mammalian Meat.Immunological reviews · 2025Review
- The choice of surgical aortic valve replacement type and mid-term outcomes in 50 to 65-year-olds: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Short-Term Outcomes of Partial Upper Ministernotomy for Aortic Valve Replacement Within the Learning Curve Context.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of mechanical and biological prostheses in patients with aortic stenosis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Implant mechanical aortic valves and start anticoagulation and save young patients (<70 years) or 'dogs howl and the caravan will move on'.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Long-term clinical outcomes in patients between the age of 50-70 years receiving biological versus mechanical aortic valve prostheses.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Bioprostheses and Mechanical Prostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 65 Years Offer Similar Long-Term Survival Rates.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- A chronological history of heart valve prostheses to offer perspectives of their limitations.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Cardiothoracic surgery and white elephants in the room: medical neoliberalism and its consequences for patient care.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024Article
- A general consonance principle for closure tests based onStatistical methods in medical research · 2024Article
- Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- Selection for transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement and mid-term survival: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024Article
- Mechanical Valves: Past, Present, and Future-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Review
- Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 70 Years.Journal of chest surgery · 2024Article
- 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
- Medium-term survival of patients with mechanical and biological aortic prosthesis at the 6th decade of life.PloS one · 2024Article
- Isotype diversity of antibodies specific for component allergens in the context of allergic diseases: eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), asthma, and the alpha-gal syndrome (AGS).Frontiers in allergy · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present population-based cohort study investigated long-term mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic (B) or mechanical aortic valve prostheses (M) in a European social welfare state.
methodsWe analysed patient data from health insurance records covering 98% of the Austrian population between 2010 and 2018. Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Further reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke were evaluated as secondary outcomes.
resultsA total of 13,993 patients were analysed and the following age groups were examined separately: <50 years (727 patients: 57.77% M, 42.23% B), 50-65 years (2612 patients: 26.88% M, 73.12% B) and >65 years (10,654 patients: 1.26% M, 98.74% B). Multivariable Cox regression revealed that the use of B-AVR was significantly associated with higher mortality in patients aged 50-65 years compared to M-AVR (HR = 1.676 [1.289-2.181], p < 0.001). B-AVR also performed worse in a competing risk analysis regarding reoperation (HR = 3.483 [1.445-8.396], p = 0.005) and myocardial infarction (HR = 2.868 [1.255-6.555], p = 0.012). However, the risk of developing heart failure and stroke did not differ significantly after AVR in any age group.
conclusionsPatients aged 50-65 years who underwent M-AVR had better long-term survival, and a lower risk of reoperation and myocardial infarction. Even though anticoagulation is crucial in patients with M-AVR, we did not observe significantly increased stroke rates in patients with M-AVR. This evident survival benefit in recipients of mechanical aortic valve prostheses aged <65 years critically questions current guideline recommendations.
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.