Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37314276›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2023

Minithoracotomy vs Conventional Sternotomy for Mitral Valve Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Enoch F Akowuah, Rebecca H Maier, Helen C Hancock, Ehsan Kharatikoopaei, Luke Vale, Cristina Fernandez-Garcia, Emmanuel Ogundimu, Janelle Wagnild, Ayesha Mathias, Zoe Walmsley and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
28.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Mitral reoperations, reimagined.JTCVS structural and endovascular · 2026
    Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Observational

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Enoch F AkowuahDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, the James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Rebecca H MaierAcademic Cardiovascular Unit, the James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hosptials NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Helen C HancockNewcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Ehsan KharatikoopaeiDepartment of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
Luke ValePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Cristina Fernandez-GarciaPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Emmanuel OgundimuDepartment of Mathematical Sciences, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
Janelle WagnildDepartment of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
Ayesha MathiasNewcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Zoe WalmsleyNewcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Nicola HoweNewcastle Clinical Trials Unit, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
Adetayo KasimDepartment of Anthropology, Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom.
Richard GrahamDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, the James Cook University Hospital, South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom.
Gavin J MurphyDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Joseph ZachariasThe Lancashire Cardiac Center, Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Blackpool, United Kingdom.
UK Mini Mitral Trial Investigators
Newcastle University · GBDurham University · GBJames Cook University Hospital · GBBlackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/12/1/29419British Heart Foundation CH/17/1/32804
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The safety and effectiveness of mitral valve repair via thoracoscopically-guided minithoracotomy (minithoracotomy) compared with median sternotomy (sternotomy) in patients with degenerative mitral valve regurgitation is uncertain. Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of minithoracotomy vs sternotomy mitral valve repair in a randomized trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, multicenter, superiority, randomized clinical trial in 10 tertiary care institutions in the UK. Participants were adults with degenerative mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve repair surgery. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 with concealed allocation to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2 physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the index surgery, assessed by an independent researcher masked to the intervention. Secondary outcomes included recurrent mitral regurgitation grade, physical activity, and quality of life. The prespecified safety outcomes included death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year. Results: Between November 2016 and January 2021, 330 participants were randomized (mean age, 67 years, 100 female [30%]); 166 were allocated to minithoracotomy and 164 allocated to sternotomy, of whom 309 underwent surgery and 294 reported the primary outcome. At 12 weeks, the mean between-group difference in the change in the SF-36 physical function T score was 0.68 (95% CI, -1.89 to 3.26). Valve repair rates (≈ 96%) were similar in both groups. Echocardiography demonstrated mitral regurgitation severity as none or mild for 92% of participants at 1 year with no difference between groups. The composite safety outcome occurred in 5.4% (9 of 166) of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% (10 of 163) undergoing sternotomy at 1 year. Conclusions and relevance: Minithoracotomy is not superior to sternotomy in recovery of physical function at 12 weeks. Minithoracotomy achieves high rates and quality of valve repair and has similar safety outcomes at 1 year to sternotomy. The results provide evidence to inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13930454.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresMitral Valve InsufficiencySternotomyThoracotomyAgedFemaleHumansMaleMitral ValveQuality of LifeRecovery of FunctionThoracoscopyTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID37314276
PMCPMC10265311
OpenAlexW4380480637

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.