ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention2024
Rigid ring vs. flexible band for tricuspid valve repair in patients with tricuspid valve regurgitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives: Rigid ring and Flexible band are techniques used to repair tricuspid valve regurgitation. The comparison between both techniques' effectiveness is controversial in the literature. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of rigid ring versus flexible band for tricuspid valve repair in patients with tricuspid valve regurgitation. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was performed in major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL to identify relevant published studies. Data were extracted and analyzed using Stata (version 17 for Mac) and Revman (version 5.4 for Windows). Results: Twelve studies were included in this meta-analysis. Total number of patients was 4259. The rigid ring wasn't superior to the flexible band in terms of postoperative tricuspid regurgitation RR 0.74, 95 % CI (0.43-1.27) (P = 0.29). However, the results were not homogeneous. After employing sensitivity analysis, the significance of the pooled effect estimate didn't change, showing no significant difference between the two annuloplasty RR 0.72, 95%CI (0.45-1.15). On the other hand, the rigid ring was associated with a higher bypass time than the flexible band (RR 4.85, P = 0.00). There were no differences between the two groups in terms of hospital stay, ICU stays, prolonged ventilation, mechanical ventilation time, annuloplasty size, stroke, concomitant mitral valve surgery, concomitant aortic valve surgery, atrial fibrillation, pacemaker implantation, low cardiac output, in-hospital death, or late death (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: Our study findings suggested no difference between rigid ring compared to flexible band regarding the rates of postoperative tricuspid regurgitation; however, rigid ring may encompass a higher bypass time. Therefore, further research is required to ensure our findings.
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.