ArticleHeart and vessels2024
Thirty-year outcomes of low-intensity anticoagulation for mechanical aortic valve.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement: A Comparison of Four Valve Types.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The long-term safety, efficacy, and outcomes of low-intensity anticoagulation for mechanical heart valves remain unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of low-intensity anticoagulation therapy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a mechanical prosthesis. This retrospective cohort study consulted medical records and conducted a questionnaire to investigate 519 patients who underwent single AVR with the St. Jude Medical bileaflet valve and were in sinus rhythm. All patients were followed up with an international normalized ratio (INR) target of 1.6-2.5, and their INR values were checked throughout the follow-up period. The survival rate, incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and risk factors for cardiac death and MACCE were investigated. The total follow-up was 9793 patient-years, and the follow-up periods were 19.9 (standard deviation [SD]: 7.9) years. The mean INR was 2.03 (SD: 0.54). Survival rates from cardiac death were 93.6% in 20 years and 85.2% in 30 years. Advanced age ≥ 70 years was the only significant risk factor for cardiac death and MACCE, and the INR < 2.0 was not significant risk factor for MACCE including thromboembolism or bleeding events. Low-intensity anticoagulation with an INR of 1.6-2.5 for patients with sinus rhythm after AVR with a bileaflet mechanical valve is safe and effective, even over 30 years.
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.