Trial reportJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Bleeding in minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement.
Trial report in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02272621 (Bleeding in Partial Upper Hemisternotomy Versus Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacement), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Bleeding in Partial Upper Hemisternotomy Versus Full Sternotomy Aortic Valve Replacement
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Definition, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of perioperative bleeding in randomized controlled trials: a methodological systematic review.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Review
- Results of minimally invasive aortic valve replacement.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Individualized Selection of Valve Intervention Strategies in Aortic Disease Is Key for Better Outcomes.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObservational studies have shown reduced perioperative bleeding in patients undergoing minimally invasive, compared with full sternotomy, aortic valve replacement. Data from randomized trials are conflicting.
methodsThis was a Swedish single center study where adult patients with aortic stenosis, 100 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo either minimally invasive (ministernotomy) or full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. The primary outcome was severe or massive bleeding defined by the Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding in adult cardiac surgery (UDPB). Secondary outcomes included blood product transfusions, chest tube output, re-exploration for bleeding, and several other clinically relevant events.
resultsOut of 100 patients, three patients randomized to ministernotomy were intraoperatively converted to full sternotomy (none was bleeding-related). Three patients (6%) in the full sternotomy group and 3 patients (6%) in the ministernotomy group suffered severe or massive postoperative bleeding according to the UDPB definition (p = 1.00). Mean chest tube output during the first 12 postoperative hours was 350 (standard deviation (SD) 220) ml in the full sternotomy group and 270 (SD 190) ml in the ministernotomy group (p = 0.08). 28% of patients in the full sternotomy group and 36% of patients in the ministernotomy group received at least one packed red blood cells transfusion (p = 0.39). Two patients in each group (4%) underwent re-exploration for bleeding.
conclusionsMinimally invasive aortic valve replacement did not result in less bleeding-related outcomes compared to full sternotomy. CLINICAL
trial registrationhttp://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov . Unique identifier: NCT02272621.
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.