Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36106346›Full record

ArticleEuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology2022

Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus redo surgical mitral valve replacement in patients with failed mitral bioprostheses.

Salman Zahid, Waqas Ullah, Anas M Hashem, Muhammad Zia Khan, Smitha Gowda, Alec Vishnevsky, David L Fischman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EuroIntervention : journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Salman ZahidDepartment of Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA.
Waqas UllahDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Anas M HashemDepartment of Medicine, Rochester General Hospital, Rochester, NY, USA.
Muhammad Zia KhanDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, West Virginia University Heart and Vascular Institute, Morgantown, WV, USA.
Smitha GowdaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX, USA.
Alec VishnevskyDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
David L FischmanDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundData on the safety of valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV-TMVR) compared with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (SMVR) in patients with a history of bioprosthetic mitral valve (MV) remain limited.

aimsWe aimed to evaluate the in-hospital, 30-day and 6-month readmission outcomes of ViV-TMVR compared with redo-SMVR in a real-world cohort.

methodsThe Nationwide Readmission Database was utilised, analysing data from 2015 to 2019. To determine the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), we used the propensity-matched analysis for major outcomes at index hospitalisation, 30 days, and 6 months during the episode of readmission.

resultsA total of 3,691 patients were included, of these, 24.2% underwent ViV-TMVR and 75.8% underwent redo-SMVR. Patients undergoing ViV-TMVR were older with higher rates of comorbidities. The mean length of stay (15 days vs 4 days) and cost of hospitalisation ($76,558 vs $46,743) were significantly higher for redo-SMVR. The rate of in-hospital all-cause mortality was also significantly lower in ViV-TMVR (2.6% vs 7.3%). By contrast, 30-day all-cause mortality during the episode of readmission (aOR 1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.40-2.55) and all-cause readmission rates (aOR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.02) were similar between both groups. The incidence of all-cause readmissions at 6 months (aOR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.65-1.05) and all-cause mortality during the episode of readmission at 6 months (aOR 1.84, 95% CI: 0.54-6.36) were also comparable. The utilisation of the ViV-TMVR procedure increased significantly during our study duration, from 5.2% to 36.8%, (p

conclusionsViV-TMVR is associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality, complications, and resource utilisation. The all-cause readmissions and 30-day and 6-month mortality during the episode of readmissions were comparable between both groups.

Indexed as

BioprosthesisHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHumansMitral ValveProsthesis FailureReoperationTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID36106346
PMCPMC9724889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.