Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37414971›Full record

SynthesisGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2024

Bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves for mitral valve replacement in patients < 70 years: an updated pairwise meta-analysis.

Adham Ahmed, Ahmed K Awad, Kathryn S Varghese, Viren S Sehgal, Kenzy Hisham, Jerrin George, Roshan Pandey, Eamon Vega, Mia Polizzi, Dave M Mathew

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Tissue versus mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50-70: a propensity-matched analysis.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024
    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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Adham AhmedCUNY School of Medicine, 1589 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10031, USA. aahmed018@citymail.cuny.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8998-8267
Ahmed K AwadFaculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Kathryn S VargheseCUNY School of Medicine, 1589 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10031, USA.
Viren S SehgalCUNY School of Medicine, 1589 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10031, USA.
Kenzy HishamFaculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Jerrin GeorgeUniversity of Toledo College of Medicine and Life Sciences, Toledo, OH, USA.
Roshan PandeyCUNY School of Medicine, 1589 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10031, USA.
Eamon VegaCUNY School of Medicine, 1589 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10031, USA.
Mia PolizziCUNY School of Medicine, 1589 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10031, USA.
Dave M MathewCUNY School of Medicine, 1589 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10031, USA.
CUNY School of Law · USAin Shams University · EGCity College of New York · USUniversity of Toledo · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ideal conduit for mitral valve replacement (MVR) remains elusive, particularly among younger patients due to increased life expectancy. We perform a pairwise meta-analysis comparing the use of bioprosthetic valves (BPV) and mechanical mitral valves (MMV) in patients < 70 years old undergoing MVR.

methodsWe comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing the use of BPV and MMV in patients < 70 years old undergoing MVR. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method in R version 4.0.2. Outcomes were pooled using the random effect model as risk ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

results16,879 patients from 15 studies were pooled. Compared to MMV, BPV was associated with significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality (RR 1.53, p = 0.0006) but no difference in 30-day stroke (RR 0.70, p = 0.43). At a weighted mean follow-up duration of 14.1 years, BPV was associated with higher rates of long-term mortality (RR 1.28, p = 0.0054). No difference was seen between the two groups for risk of long-term stroke (RR 0.92, p = 0.67), reoperation(RR 1.72, p = 0.12), or major-bleeding (RR 0.57, p = 0.10) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 11.7, 11.3, and 11.9 years, respectively.

conclusionThe use of MMV in patients < 70 undergoing MVR is associated with lower rates of 30-day/long-term mortality compared to BPV. No significant differences were observed for risk of 30-day/long-term stroke, long-term reoperation, and long-term major bleeding. These findings support the use of MMV in younger patients, although prospective, randomized trials are still needed.

Indexed as

BioprosthesisHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationStrokeAgedAortic ValveHemorrhageHumansMitral ValveProspective StudiesReoperationTreatment OutcomeBioprostheticMechanicalMitral valve

Identifiers

PMID37414971
OpenAlexW4383337760

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.