ArticlePloS one2024
Medium-term survival of patients with mechanical and biological aortic prosthesis at the 6th decade of life.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Comparative evaluation of mechanical and biological prostheses in patients with aortic stenosis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe best aortic prosthesis type in 60-70 year old patients is not established. Our aim was to evaluate the survival in a National cohort of patients between 60-70 years old who required surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis (SAVR) with either a mechanical (MP) or bioprosthesis (BP) valve.
methodsThis is a retrospective study using national data from the Ministry of Health. We included all patients between 60 to 70 years old who underwent SAVR for aortic stenosis in Uruguay from 2011 to 2021. The primary outcome was overall survival according to type of prosthesis used stratified by effect modifiers. The independent effects of gender and use of statins were evaluated.
resultsWe included 1196 patients (66±3.0 years old; 39.1% female). Mortality was higher for BP (296, 29.9%%) than MP (36, 17.1%; p<0.001). Median follow-up time was 4.5 years (Interquartile range [IQR] 3.4-6.5). The unadjusted incidence rate ratio was higher for BP (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.43;95%CI: 0.99, 2.14, p = 0.045). The effect of BP on mortality rate was greater in males (IRR = 1.82;95%CI:1.14,2.92. p interaction = 0.08) and patients who were not taking statins (IRR = 1.97;95%CI:1.14,3.41. p interaction = 0.06). The use of BP was an independent predictor of overall survival in male patients (Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32;95%CI: 1.68, 1.04. p = 0.021) and in patients who were not taking statins (HR = 2.07;95%CI: 1.17, 3.67. p = 0.013).
conclusionThe use of BP was associated with worse survival in male patients and patients not taking statins. Gender and statins use should contribute to type of prosthesis decision in the 60-69 age group.
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.