ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2022
Engineering Efforts to Refine Compatibility and Duration of Aortic Valve Replacements: An Overview of Previous Expectations and New Promises.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advancements and Challenges in Tissue-Engineered Heart Valves: Integrating Biomechanics, Biomaterials, and Biomimetic Design for Functional Maturity.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Bovine pericardial patch with reduced crosslinking time preserves matrix integrity and mitigates calcification in rat subcutaneous tissue.Cell and tissue banking · 2025Article
- Cardiac Tissue Bioprinting: Integrating Structure and Functions Through Biomimetic Design, Bioinks, and Stimulation.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Cells and Materials for Cardiac Repair and Regeneration.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The absence of pharmacological treatments to reduce or retard the progression of cardiac valve diseases makes replacement with artificial prostheses (mechanical or bio-prosthetic) essential. Given the increasing incidence of cardiac valve pathologies, there is always a more stringent need for valve replacements that offer enhanced performance and durability. Unfortunately, surgical valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes still leads to disadvantages over time. In fact, mechanical valves require a lifetime anticoagulation therapy that leads to a rise in thromboembolic complications, while biological valves are still manufactured with non-living tissue, consisting of aldehyde-treated xenograft material (e.g., bovine pericardium) whose integration into the host fails in the mid- to long-term due to unresolved issues regarding immune-compatibility. While various solutions to these shortcomings are currently under scrutiny, the possibility to implant fully biologically compatible valve replacements remains elusive, at least for large-scale deployment. In this regard, the failure in translation of most of the designed tissue engineered heart valves (TEHVs) to a viable clinical solution has played a major role. In this review, we present a comprehensive overview of the TEHVs developed until now, and critically analyze their strengths and limitations emerging from basic research and clinical trials. Starting from these aspects, we will also discuss strategies currently under investigation to produce valve replacements endowed with a true ability to self-repair, remodel and regenerate. We will discuss these new developments not only considering the scientific/technical framework inherent to the design of novel valve prostheses, but also economical and regulatory aspects, which may be crucial for the success of these novel designs.
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.