SynthesisJournal of cardiac surgery2022
Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiac surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid deployment technology versus conventional sutured bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement.Journal of cardiac surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Exploring Use-Rates of and Scientific Evidence on Sutureless Devices in Aortic Valve Replacement: A Bibliographic Meta-Analysis and Clinical Considerations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Re-ballooning of sealing frame for intraoperative paravalvular leak during rapid deployment aortic valve replacement: a report of two cases.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery cases · 2025Article
- A rapid deployment valve option for failing Medtronic Freestyle full root: a single centre experience.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Perceval sutureless bioprosthesis versus Perimount sutured bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis: a retrospective, propensity-matched study.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Sutureless Biological Aortic Valve Replacement (Su-AVR) in Redo operations: a retrospective real-world experience report of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Article
- Rapid-Deployment Aortic Valve Replacement: Patient Selection and Special Considerations.Vascular health and risk management · 2023Review
- The Novel Use of a Rapid Deployment Valve in Type A Aortic Dissection.Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.)Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDespite the benefits of rapid deployment aortic valve prostheses (RDAVR), conventional sutured valves (cAVR) are more commonly used in the treatment for aortic stenosis. Given the paucity of randomized studies, this study aimed to synthesize available data to compare both treatment options.
methodsA systematic search of Pubmed, OVID, and MEDLINE was conducted to retrieve comparative studies for RDAVR versus cAVR in the treatment of aortic stenosis. Out of 1773 returned titles, 35 papers were used in the final analysis, including 1 randomized study, 1 registry study, 6 propensity-matched studies, and 28 observational studies, incorporating a total of 10,381 participants (RDAVR n = 3686; cAVR n = 6310).
resultsRandom-effects meta-analysis found no difference between the two treatment groups in terms of operative mortality, stroke, or bleeding (p > .05). The RDAVR group had reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [-1.35, -1.20], p < .001) and cross-clamp times (SMD: -1.05, 95% CI: [-1.12, -0.98], p < .001). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was also shorter in the RDAVR group (SMD: -0.385, 95% CI: [-0.679, -0.092], p = .010). The risk of pacemaker insertion was higher for RDAVR (odds ratio [OR]: 2.41, 95% CI: [1.92, 3.01], p < .001) as was the risk of paravalvular leak (PVL) at midterm follow-up (OR: 2.52, 95% CI: [1.32, 4.79], p = .005). Effective orifice area and transvalvular gradient were more favorable in RDAVR patients (p > .05).
conclusionsDespite the benefits of RDAVR in terms of reduced operative time and enhanced recovery, the risk of pacemaker insertion and midterm PVL remains a significant cause for concern.
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.