ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2024
Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioprosthetic versus mechanical surgical aortic valve replacement in patients ≥65 years of age.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement: A Comparison of Four Valve Types.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Robotic aortic valve replacement in the Middle East: reproducibility into practice with evolving complexity.Annals of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
- A "Watchful Surgery" Approach: Timing and Valve Choice for Mildly Symptomatic Mitral and Aortic Valve Disease.Journal of surgery and research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains challenging. The risk of anticoagulation complications vs. the risk of aortic valve reintervention should be weighed. This study compared the outcomes of bioprosthetic vs. mechanical AVR in patients older and younger than 50.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted from 2009 to 2019 and involved 292 adult patients who underwent isolated AVR. The patients were divided according to their age (above 50 years or 50 years and younger) and the type of valves used in each age group. The outcomes of bioprosthetic valves (Groups 1a (>50 years) and 1b (≤50 years)) were compared with those of mechanical valves (Groups 2a (>50 years) and 2b (≤50 years)) in each age group.
resultsThe groups had nearly equal rates of preexisting comorbidities except for Group 1b, in which the rate of hypertension was greater (32.6% vs. 14.7%;
conclusionsThe outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic valve replacement were comparable in patients older than 50 years. Using bioprosthetic valves in patients younger than 50 years was associated with a greater rate of valve reintervention, with no beneficial effect on the risk of bleeding or stroke.
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.