ArticleCureus2025
Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch in Aortic Valve Replacement With No.19 Prosthesis: Impact on Early and Late Outcomes.
Article in Cureus, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) continues to be a crucial topic of discussion regarding its influence on the aortic valve surgery results. The aim of our study is to evaluate the incidence of mismatch and its influence on early and late results in aortic valve replacement using prosthesis No 19.
methodsA cohort of 175 patients underwent aortic valve replacement with prosthesis No-19 and was followed for up to 10 years. PPM was defined according to indexed effective orifice valve area (EOAi). Early results were evaluated through hospital mortality, and the data were collected from hospital recordings. Long-term follow-up was realized by contacting the patients by phone. The endpoints were mortality and the clinical status assessed by New York Heart Association (NYHA) class change after intervention.
resultsThe overall and severe mismatch incidence was 69.1% and 29.7%, respectively. Overall, hospital mortality is 3.4%. Severe mismatch (p=0.057) and continuous values of indexed effective orifice area (p = 0.079), adjusted for sex and age, do not affect early mortality. Severe mismatch and indexed effective orifice area were associated with less post-operative improvement of NYHA functional class (p<0.015) in the long term, independently from other predictors.
conclusionsSevere mismatch and small indexed orifice areas do not affect early and late mortality, but they are related, importantly, with less symptomatic improvement in the long-term outcomes.
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.