Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39015469›Full record

ArticleJTCVS open2024

Current definitions of hemodynamic structural valve deterioration after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement lack consistency.

Bart J J Velders, Michiel D Vriesendorp, Federico M Asch, Michael J Reardon, Francois Dagenais, Michael G Moront, Joseph F Sabik Iii, Rolf H H Groenwold, Robert J M Klautz

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in JTCVS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Seven-year outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with a stented bovine pericardial bioprosthesis in over 1100 patients: a prospective multicentre analysis.European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery · 2024
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Bart J J VeldersDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Michiel D VriesendorpDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Federico M AschDepartment of Cardiovascular Core Laboratories, MedStar Health Research Institute, and Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Michael J ReardonDepartment of Cardiovascular Core Laboratories, MedStar Health Research Institute, and Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Francois DagenaisDepartment of Cardiovascular Core Laboratories, MedStar Health Research Institute, and Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Michael G MorontDepartment of Cardiovascular Core Laboratories, MedStar Health Research Institute, and Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Joseph F Sabik IiiDepartment of Cardiovascular Core Laboratories, MedStar Health Research Institute, and Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Rolf H H GroenwoldDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Robert J M KlautzDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: New echocardiographic definitions have been proposed for hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. We aimed to study their consistency in classifying structural valve deterioration after surgical aortic valve replacement. Methods: Data were used of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement in a multicenter, prospective cohort study with a 5-year follow-up. All patients received the same stented bioprosthesis. Echocardiographic parameters were assessed by an independent core laboratory. Moderate or greater stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration was defined according to Capodanno and colleagues, Dvir and colleagues, and the Valve Academic Research Consortium 3; regurgitation data were not considered in this analysis. Consistency was quantified on the basis of structural valve deterioration classification at subsequent time points. Results: A total of 1118 patients received implants. Patients' mean age was 70 years, and 75% were male. Hemodynamic structural valve deterioration at any visit was present in 51 patients (4.6%), 32 patients (2.9%), and 34 patients (3.0%) according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3. A total of 1064 patients (95%) were never labeled with structural valve deterioration by any definition. After the first classification with structural valve deterioration, 59%, 59%, and 65% had no subsequent structural valve deterioration classification according to Capodanno, Dvir, and Valve Academic Research Consortium 3, respectively. Conclusions: The current definitions of hemodynamic structural valve deterioration are strong negative predictors but inconsistent positive discriminators for the detection of stenotic hemodynamic structural valve deterioration. Although the diagnosis of structural valve deterioration may be categorical, echocardiographic indices lack this degree of precision in the first 5 years after surgical aortic valve replacement. The inconsistency of current structural valve deterioration definitions impedes the detection of true valve degeneration, which challenges the clinical usefulness of these definitions.

Indexed as

bioprosthetic aortic valve replacementechocardiographyhemodynamic structural valve deterioration

Identifiers

PMID39015469
PMCPMC11247222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.