ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2023
Impact of concomitant mitral valve surgery on the clinical outcomes of patients with moderate functional mitral regurgitation and HFpEF undergoing aortic valve replacement: a cohort study.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2023. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFunctional mitral regurgitation (FMR) worsens the prognosis of patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). While concomitant mitral valve surgery (MVS) is recommended for severe FMR during aortic valve replacement (AVR), the optimal treatment of moderate FMR, especially in those with HFpEF, remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of MVS in patients with moderate FMR and HFpEF undergoing AVR.
methodsA total of 212 consecutive patients (AVR: 34.0%, AVR-MVS: 66.0%) during 2010 and 2019 were enrolled. Survival outcomes were compared. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance the baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier curve and log-rank test were applied to compare the survival outcomes. The primary endpoint was the overall mortality.
resultsThe mean age was 58.9 [Formula: see text] 11.9 years, and 27.8% of them were female. During a median follow-up of 16.4 months, AVR-MVS did not reduce the risk of mid-term MACCE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-4.17, P
conclusionIn patients with moderate FMR and HFpEF, isolated AVR might be more reasonable than AVR-MVS.
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.