SynthesisBrazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery2025
Rheumatic Mitral Valve Surgery: Repair or Replacement?
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of cardiovascular surgery, 2025. 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.
- Early Detection and Treatment Opportunities for Children With Subclinical Rheumatic Heart Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRheumatic heart disease remains a public health problem, especially in developing countries. The mitral valve (MV) is the main affected cardiac structure, requiring intervention in many cases. The discussion of which is the best option - repair or replacement - is still a controversy.
objectiveTo compare the survival of patients with rheumatic MV submitted to replacement or repair.
methodsWe systematically reviewed the English literature through PubMed®, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (or LILACS), Scientific Electronic Library Online (or SciELO), and Google Scholar between January 2021 and February 2022, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (or PRISMA) methodology. Articles with a sample of at least 30 patients who underwent MV replacement or repair were included.
resultsSix studies including 2874 patients were analyzed. Most of the patients were female (2001; 69.6%) with a ratio of 2.3:1. The ages ranged from 11 to 66 years. The mean follow-up varied from six to 106 months. In the MV repair group, mortality was 2.5% (62 of 2473) and reoperation was 3.7% (93 of 2473), while in the MV replacement group, mortality was 8.2% (106 of 1291), and 3.6% (54 of 1475) of the patients required reoperation. The patient's survival was similar (85% for repair and 87% for replacement). The main complications post-MV repair or replacement were stroke (1.8%; 2.5%) and endocarditis (0.5%; 1.3%).
conclusionThe MV repair had lower mortality and fewer complications compared to MV replacement. Reoperation rate and survival are similar.
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.