ArticleJTCVS open2021
Stentless valves for bicuspid and tricuspid aortic valve disease.
Article in JTCVS open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged >60 Years With Bicuspid Valve Stenosis: A Time-to-Event Data Meta-Analysis.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Pooled it
- Transcatheter Treatment of Bicuspid Aortic Valve Stenosis: From Observational Studies to Randomized Clinical Trials.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2025Review
- The Prevalence of Coronary Artery Disease in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Patients: An Overview of the Literature.Aorta (Stamford, Conn.) · 2023Article
- Commentary: Stentless valve for bicuspid aortic valve replacement: Some answers just lead to more questions.JTCVS open · 2021Article
- 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To determine long-term survival and reoperation rate in patients with a bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) and patients with a tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) after stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR)/aortic root replacement (ARR). Methods: Between 1992 and 2014, 1293 patients underwent first AVR/ARR with a stentless aortic valve using the modified inclusion operating technique, including 741 patients with a TAV and 552 with a BAV. Using propensity scoring with 26 variables, 330 matched pairs were identified with AVR with or without ascending aorta/arch replacement. Data were obtained through chart review, surveys, and the National Death Index. Results: Patient demographics were similar in the propensity score-matched groups. Both groups had similar cardiopulmonary bypass, cross-clamp, and hypothermia circulatory arrest times, cerebral protection strategies, and rate of aortic arch replacement. The median size of implanted valves was similar (BAV: 27 mm [range, 25-29 mm] vs TAV: 27 mm [range, 25-27 mm]). Compared with the TAV group, the BAV group had a shorter hospital stay (6 days vs 7 days; Conclusions: The BAV patients had better long-term survival but a higher reoperation rate compared with TAV patients after stentless AVR. Our findings suggest caution in the use of bioprostheses for BAV patients.
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.