ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2024
Mechanical Valves: Past, Present, and Future-A Review.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovation and Challenges in Materials for Transcatheter Aortic Valves.Journal of cardiovascular translational research · 2026Review
- Outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic surgical valve replacements in egypt: evidence from a narrative review and experts' survey.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2026Review
- Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement: A Comparison of Four Valve Types.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Global trends and research hotspots in transcatheter valve replacement for aortic regurgitation: a bibliometric and visualized analysis.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- Review
- Smaller Bioprosthetic Valves May Be Associated with Worse Clinical Outcomes and Reduced Freedom from Reoperation in sAVR.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mechanical valve was first invented in the 1950s, and since then, a wide variety of prostheses have been developed. Although mechanical valves have outstanding durability, their use necessitates life-long treatment with anticoagulants, which increases the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. The current guidelines recommend a mechanical prosthetic valve in patients under 50-60 years; however, for patients aged 50-70 years, the data are conflicting and there is not a clear-cut recommendation. In recent decades, progress has been made in several areas. First, the On-X mechanical valve was introduced; this valve has a lower anticoagulant requirement in the aortic position. Second, a potential alternative to vitamin K-antagonist treatment, rivaroxaban, has shown encouraging results in small-scale trials and is currently being tested in a large randomized clinical trial. Lastly, an innovative mechanical valve that eliminates the need for anticoagulant therapy is under development. We attempted to review the current literature on the subject with special emphasis on the role of mechanical valves in the current era and discuss alternatives and future innovations.
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.