ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2022
Long-Term Outcomes Stratified by Age in Patients with a Mechanical versus Biological Mitral Valve Replacement.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Balancing anticoagulation and reoperation risks determines prostheses choice (mechanical/biological) for mitral valve replacement. We aimed to re-evaluate the outcomes after biological versus mechanical mitral valve replacement. Methods: We compared long-term benefits and risks of mechanical and biological prostheses in 2056 patients (52% men, 48% women; 65.4 ± 12.1 years) who underwent mitral valve replacements between 1993−2017, in a retrospective single-centre study. Data sources included prospective institutional database, social registry, general practitioner data and follow-up questionnaire. Patients were stratified by age: < = 39 y (n = 82), 40−49 y (n = 164), 50−59 y (n = 335), 60−69 y (n = 593), 70−79 y (n = 743) and > = 80 y (n = 139). Long-term outcomes (mortality, reoperations, bleeding) were analysed. Results: Altogether, 1308 mechanical (53% men, 47% women; 61.5 ± 11.7 years) and 748 biological (50% men, 50% women; 72.3 ± 9.6 years) valves were implanted. The reason for valve replacement was stenosis in 162, insufficiency in 823 and combined in 323 cases for mechanical, while it was 46, 567 and 135 for biological valves, respectively. Overall cumulative survival was higher with mechanical prosthesis (mean: 139 ± 4 vs. 102 ± 5 months, 10 y: 55% vs. 33%, p < 0.0001). Subgroup analysis revealed higher survival among patients receiving mechanical prosthesis up to 60 years (< = 39 y p = 0.047, 40−49 y p < 0.0001, 50−59 y p = 0.001). In patients 60−69 years, overall survival did not differ; however, in survivors beyond 8 years, mechanical prosthesis showed improved survival (p = 0.014). While between 70−79 years survival was nearly identical, for above 80 years, patients had a higher survival with biological prosthesis (p = 0.014). Conclusion: The present data demonstrated a higher survival of mechanical prosthesis in a wide range of patients after mitral valve replacement.
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.