ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Early surgical outcomes of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement in bicuspid aortic valves.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Biological valve prostheses in rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RD AVR) procedures have demonstrated excellent outcomes. However, previous studies indicate a lack of specific surgical outcomes for the bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) or recommend RD AVR implementation. The existing literature comparing the clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of patients with BAV and those with tricuspid aortic valves (TAVs) after RD AVR is limited. Therefore, this study evaluated the safety and feasibility of RD AVR in BAV, including Sievers type 0, and compared the early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of patients who underwent RD AVR at a single center based on aortic valve type. Methods: Our institution officially commenced performing RD AVR using Intuity valves in September 2022. The medical records of 80 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) between September 1, 2022, and July 31, 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. In this set, 30 patients underwent RD AVR for aortic stenosis. Among the 30 RD AVR cases, groups A and B comprised 16 (53.3%) patients with TAV and 14 (46.7%) with BAV, respectively. The preoperative characteristics and postoperative echocardiographic data were compared between the two groups. Results: No statistically significant differences in preoperative characteristics, including mean age and sex distribution, were found between groups A and B. Notably, no patient in both groups exhibited mild- or higher-grade aortic regurgitation. The postoperative transvalvular mean pressure gradients showed significantly lower values in group B than in group A (12.20±4.64 Conclusions: In this study, RD AVR was considered feasible in a small, carefully selected cohort of patients with aortic stenosis, even in BAV, including Sievers type 0, as observed from the standpoint of postoperative hemodynamic outcomes and the incidence of aortic regurgitation.
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.