ArticleTurk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi2025
Early-term results of percutaneous pulmonary valve implantation (valve-in-valve) in dysfunctional bioprosthetic valves in pulmonary position.
Article in Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to assess the outcomes of valve-in-valve implantation within previously placed bioprosthetic valves. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients who underwent percutaneous valve-in-valve procedures between July 2014 and September 2023. These patients had previously received pulmonary bioprosthetic valves via surgical or transcatheter methods. Results: The study included 20 patients (13 males, 7 females; mean age: 20.4±7.1 years; range, 10.8 to 35.8 years). Preprocedural assessment revealed stenotic dysfunction in 12 patients, regurgitant dysfunction in two patients, and a combination of both in six patients. Following implantation, there was a notable improvement in invasive measurements; systolic right ventricular pressure decreased from 64.0±24.5 mmHg to 31.3±6.7 mmHg (p<0.001), right ventricular outflow tract gradient from 44.0±23.2 mmHg to 7.6±5.8 mmHg (p<0.001), and echocardiographic pulmonary regurgitation grade from 2.1±1.2 to 0.2±0.4 (p<0.001). The median time between initial bioprosthetic pulmonary valve placement and valve-in-valve procedure was 8.2 years (IQR, 6.2 to 9.9 years). The median follow-up duration was 24.8 months (IQR, 8.3 to 40.2 months). Only one patient required a repeat PPVI procedure 10 years after the valve-in-valve procedure, while no other patients required reintervention during the follow-up period. Conclusion: Valve-in-valve implantation within previously placed bioprosthetic valves is a feasible and safe approach, offering symptom relief and eliminating the need for further surgical interventions.
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.