ArticleJTCVS open2024
Mitral valve replacement versus repair for severe mitral regurgitation in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction.
Article in JTCVS open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mid-to-long-term outcomes, durability, and mortality predictors after mitral valve replacement with the Epic porcine bioprosthesis: a single-center Japanese experience.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2026Article
- International Utah Cardiac Recovery Symposium (U-CARS) 2025: Clinical Science Proceedings.Heart failure reviews · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study compares early and long-term outcomes following mitral valve (MV) repair and replacement in patients with mitral regurgitation (MR) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods: Patients with primary or secondary MR and LVEF <50% who underwent MV replacement or repair (with/without atrial septal defect closure and/or atrial fibrillation ablation) between 2005 and 2017 at our center were retrospectively analyzed using unadjusted and propensity score matching techniques (42 pairs). Results: A total of 356 patients with either primary (n = 162 [45.5%]) or secondary MR (n = 194 [54.5%]) and LVEF <50% underwent MV repair (n = 293 [82.3%]) or replacement (n = 63 [17.7%]) during the study period. In-hospital mortality was 0.3% (repair) and 1.6% (replacement) in the unmatched cohort ( Conclusions: MV repair performed in primary or secondary MR and reduced LVEF provides superior long-term results compared with replacement. Severe LV dysfunction is a significant predictor of reduced survival following MV surgery.
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.