ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
Aortic root replacement for bicuspid aortic valve dysfunction does not impair survival rates.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with a bicuspid aortic valve carry an increased risk for developing an ascending aortic aneurysm due to intrinsic aortic wall alterations. A lower threshold for aortic surgery may therefore be considered in these patients, especially in those who require aortic valve surgery. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of an isolated aortic valve replacement with that of an aortic root replacement in bicuspid aortic valve patients with an indication for aortic valve surgery.
methodsPatients were included in retrospect from a tertiary academic hospital. Included patients received an elective aortic valve (AVR) or a composite valve-graft conduit (both mechanical and biological) between 2006 and 2021 without any concomitant procedure. Mortality data were retrieved from a national database and comparisons, including survival analyses, were performed between both groups.
resultsA total of 132 isolated AVR and 149 aortic root replacements were included. Patients who received an isolated AVR were significantly older than the aortic root replacement group (62.9 vs. 57.7 year respectively, p < 0.001). Survival analyses showed a comparable long-term mortality between both groups (8.1% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.321).
conclusionThis study shows that performing an aortic root replacement with a composite valve-graft conduit in bicuspid aortic valve patients does not impair the survival outcomes. In the light of preventing potential future aortic complications within this patient group with a congenitally and structurally weakened aortic wall, a more aggressive approach towards the treatment of BAV aortopathy might be considered.
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.