ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Trends in SAVR with biological vs. mechanical valves in middle-aged patients: results from a French large multi-centric survey.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Valve-in-Valve TAVR Versus Redo Surgery in Women With Degenerated Aortic Bioprosthesis: A Single-Center Experience.Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- Clinical and Prognostic Differences Between Mechanical Versus Biological Prosthetic Infective Endocarditis-A Nationwide Database Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Early comparison of one-year outcomes after aortic mechanical vs. biological valve replacement in Chinese patients with small aortic annulus.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Porcine pericardium crosslinked with POSS-PEG-CHO possesses weakened immunogenicity and anti-calcification property.Materials today. Bio · 2025Article
- The Essential Aortic Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Update: Procedural Strategies and Current Clinical Results.Structural heart : the journal of the Heart Team · 2025Review
- Age-Related Outcomes of Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement for Structural Valve Deterioration.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
- Long-term clinical outcomes in patients between the age of 50-70 years receiving biological versus mechanical aortic valve prostheses.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2025Article
- Bioprostheses and Mechanical Prostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 65 Years Offer Similar Long-Term Survival Rates.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Article
- Mechanical Valves: Past, Present, and Future-A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Survival and Recurrence of Endocarditis following Mechanical vs. Biological Aortic Valve Replacement for Endocarditis in Patients Aged 40 to 65 Years: Data from the INFECT-Registry.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/introduction: Currently, despite continued issues with durability ( 1), biological prosthetic valves are increasingly chosen over mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in adult patients of all ages, at least in Western countries. For younger patients, this choice means assuming the risks associated with a redo SAVR or valve-in-valve procedure. Purpose: To assess the use of mechanical vs. biological valve prostheses for SAVR relative to patient's age and implant time in a large population extracted from the French National Database EPICARD. Methods: Patients in EPICARD undergoing SAVR from 2007 to 2022 were included from 22 participating public or private centers chosen to represent a balanced representation of centre sizes and geographical discrepancies. Patients with associated pathology of the aorta (aneurysm or dissection) and requiring a vascular aortic prosthesis were excluded. Comparisons were made amongst centers, valve choice, implant date range, and patient age. Results: We considered 101,070 valvular heart disease patients and included 72,375 SAVR (mean age 71.4 ± 12.2 years). We observed a mechanical vs. biological prosthesis ratio (MBPR) of 0.14 for the overall population. Before 50 years old (y-o), MBPR was >1.3 ( Conclusion: In a large contemporary French patient population, real world practice showed a recent shift towards a lower age-threshold for biological SAVR as compared to what would suggest contemporary guidelines.
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.