ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
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.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiac valve prosthesis choice for left-sided infective endocarditis in Medicare patients.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Single-center experience with all-biological valved conduit for the treatment of complex aortic root endocarditis.JTCVS techniques · 2025Article
- Surgery for Complex vs. Simple Native Left-Sided Endocarditis: Insights from an Extended Follow-Up on Survival, Recurrent Infection, and Valve Durability.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Acknowledging acute kidney disease following ureteroscopy and laser lithotripsy: results from a tertiary care referral center.International urology and nephrology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
48 authors at 20 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInfective endocarditis (IE) is a serious disease, and in many cases, surgery is necessary. Whether the type of prosthesis implanted for aortic valve replacement (AVR) for IE impacts patient survival is a matter of debate. The aim of the present study is to quantify differences in long-term survival and recurrence of endocarditis AVR for IE according to prosthesis type among patients aged 40 to 65 years.
methodsThis was an analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY. Trends in proportion to the use of mechanical prostheses versus biological ones over time were tested by applying the sieve bootstrapped t-test. Confounders were adjusted using the optimal full-matching propensity score. The difference in overall survival was compared using the Cox model, whereas the differences in recurrence of endocarditis were evaluated using the Gray test.
resultsOverall, 4365 patients were diagnosed and operated on for IE from 2000 to 2021. Of these, 549, aged between 40 and 65 years, underwent AVR. A total of 268 (48.8%) received mechanical prostheses, and 281 (51.2%) received biological ones. A significant trend in the reduction of implantation of mechanical vs. biological prostheses was observed during the study period (
conclusionsThe present analysis of the INFECT-REGISTRY shows increased survival and reduced recurrence of endocarditis after a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis implant for IE in middle-aged 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.