Trial reportJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Application of low-intensity anticoagulation after On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement.
Trial report in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025. 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
Abstract
objectiveTo explore the safety and efficacy of low-intensity anticoagulation in patients after On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement.
methodsA total of 104 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement in Cardiac Surgery Department of Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital from December 2018 to December 2021 were randomly divided into low-intensity anticoagulant (INR:1.5-2.0) and high-intensity anticoagulant (INR:2.0-2.5) to compare the incidence of adverse events related to postoperative anticoagulation between the two groups.
resultsFifty-three patients were included in the low-intensity anticoagulation group (INR 1.5-2.0), and 51 patients were included in the high-intensity group (2.0-2.5). There was no significant difference in baseline data and surgical index between the two groups (P > 0.05); there were statistically significant differences in PT, INR and bleeding events (P < 0.05), but no significant difference in embolic events (P > 0.05).
conclusionFor patients requiring On-X mechanical aortic valve replacement who have no risk factors for thromboembolism, it is appropriate to control the INR in the target range 1.5-2.0, which can reduce the incidence of bleeding adverse events and significantly improve the quality of life, without increasing the risk of thromboembolic adverse events.
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.