ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
Clinical outcomes following surgical mitral valve plasty or replacement in patients with infectious endocarditis: A meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mitral valve repair and replacement in infectious endocarditis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcome.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Review
- Surgery for Active Infective Endocarditis on Mitral Valve: Anatomical, Surgical, and Disease Factors as Long-Term Outcome Modifiers.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Twenty-Year Experience with Surgery for Native and Prosthetic Mitral Valve Endocarditis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: For degenerative mitral disease, more and more evidences support that mitral valve plasty (MVP) has much better clincial outcomes than mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, the advantages of MVP in patients suffering from infectious endocarditis (IE) are unclear. To evaluate the appropriateness of MVP in IE patients, we conducted this meta-analysis. Based on the difference between active and healed phase, we not only compared the result of patients with IE, but also identified the subgroup with active IE. Methods: We systematically searched the clinical trials comparing clinical outcomes of MVP and MVR in patients suffering from IE. Relevant articles were searched from January 1, 2000 to March 18, 2021 in Pubmed and Cochrane Library. Studies were excluded if they were with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score less than 6 or lacking of direct comparisons between MVP and MVR. Results: 23 studies were involved and 25,615 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed fewer adverse events and early or long-term death in the MVP group. However, more reoperations existed in this patient group. And the reinfection rate was close between two groups. Similar results were observed after identifying active IE subgroup, but there is no difference in the freedom from reoperation due to all-events. Conclusions: Although limitimations exited in this study, patients suffering from IE can benefit from both MVP and MVR. For surgeons with consummate skills, MVP can be the preferred choice for suitable IE 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.