ArticleJACC. Advances2023
Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical Valves vs Perimount Bioprostheses in 50- to 69-Year-Old Patients.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Expanding indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: time for valve-in-valve in mechanical prosthesis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Indications for and characteristics of redo aortic valve replacement after primary mechanical aortic valve replacement.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Percutaneous and surgical management of aortic stenosis in the SWEDEHEART registry (2013-2023): a nationwide observational study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Seven-Year Results for RESILIA Tissue in Bicuspid Aortic Valve Replacement Patients: Age and Valve Size Considerations.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Comprehensive assessment of aortic flow before and after aortic valve replacement in an ex vivo porcine model with four-dimensional flow magnetic resonance imaging.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Commentary: The Never-Ending Debate on the Type of Aortic Prosthesis in Patients Aged 50-70, as TAVR Peaks in Popularity: Which Prosthesis Should Be Used for Aortic Valve Replacement?Journal of chest surgery · 2024Article
- Medium-term survival of patients with mechanical and biological aortic prosthesis at the 6th decade of life.PloS one · 2024Article
- Which Prosthesis for Aortic Valve Replacement?JACC. Advances · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evidence is mixed regarding the most appropriate type of valve prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients 50 to 69 years. American and European guidelines differ. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term all-cause mortality and complication rates after AVR in patients aged 50 to 69 years according to implantation of a Perimount bioprosthetic valve or a mechanical valve. Methods: In this nationwide observational cohort study, all patients aged 50 to 69 years who underwent primary surgical AVR in Sweden 2003 to 2018 using a Perimount bioprosthesis or mechanical valve were identified from the SWEDEHEART register. Primary outcome; all-cause mortality, secondary outcomes; major bleeding, aortic valve reintervention, heart failure hospitalization, and stroke. National health-data registers were used to ascertain outcomes. Regression standardization addressed confounding. Results: A total of 6,907 patients aged 50 to 69 years were included (Perimount group, n = 3,831 and mechanical valve group, n = 3,076) and 74% were men. The use of bioprostheses increased during the study period. At 15 years of follow-up, the estimated cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 37% (95% CI: 35%-40%) vs 45% (95% CI: 42%-48%) in the mechanical and Perimount groups, respectively (survival difference -7.9% [95% CI: -11% to -4.6%]). Patients with mechanical valves had a lower risk of aortic valve reintervention but a higher risk for bleeding. Survival difference at 15 years in ages 50 to 59 years was -15% (95% CI: -8.4% to -21%). Conclusions: In patients aged 50 to 69 years who underwent surgical AVR, survival was better in those who received mechanical compared to Perimount bioprosthetic valves. While valve choice should be guided by individual patient factors and patient preference rather than by chronological age, the substantial survival advantage observed in patients with mechanical valves in ages 50 to 59 years must be recognized.
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.