ArticleKorean circulation journal2022
A Bicentric Propensity Matched Analysis of 158 Patients Comparing Porcine Versus Bovine Stented Bioprosthetic Valves in Pulmonary Position.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bovine pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic valves in pulmonary position for adult congenital heart disease: A three-center, retrospective, propensity-weighted analysis of clinical outcomes.International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease · 2026Article
- The Quest for Longevity in Pulmonary Valve Replacement: Translating Experimental Insights Into Surgical Excellence.Korean circulation journal · 2026Article
- Pulmonary Valve Replacement in Adults and Adolescents With Congenital Heart Disease: A United Kingdom and Ireland Survey.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Beyond the Valve: Lifelong Management of Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Lesion in Adult Congenital Heart Disease.Korean circulation journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesPulmonary valve replacement (PVR) is the most common operation in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD). There is controversy regarding the best bioprosthesis. We compare the performance of stented bioprosthetic valves (the Mosaic [Medtronic™] porcine pericardial against Carpentier Perimount Magna Ease [Edwards™] bovine) in pulmonary position in patients with CHD.
methodsBetween January 1999 and December 2019, all the PVRs were identified from hospital databases in 2 congenital heart centres in Spain. Valve performance was evaluated using clinical and echocardiographic criteria. Propensity score matching was used to balance the 2 treatment groups.
resultsThree hundred nineteen patients were retrospectively identified. After statistical adjustment, 79 propensity-matched pairs were available for comparison Freedom from reintervention for the porcine cohort was 98.3%, 96.1%, and 91.9% at 3, 5, and 10 years and 100%, 98%, and 90.8% for the bovine cohort (p=0.88). Freedom from structural valve degeneration (SVD) for the porcine cohort was 96.9%, 92.8% and 88.7% at 3, 5, and 10 years and 100%, 98%, and 79.1% for the bovine cohort (p=0.38). Bovine prosthesis was associated with a reintervention hazard ratio (HR), 1.12; 95% confidence intervals (CIs), 0.24-5.26; p=0.89 and SVD HR, 1.69 (0.52-5.58); p=0.38. In the first 5 years, there was no difference in outcomes. After 5 years, the recipients of the bovine bioprosthesis were at higher risk for SVD (reintervention HR, 2.08 [0.27-16.0]; p=0.49; SVD HR, 6.99 [1.23-39.8]; p=0.03).
conclusionsBoth bioprosthesis have similar outcomes up to 5 years, afterwards, porcine bioprosthesis seem to have less SVD.
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.