ArticleGlobal heart2025
Clinical Outcomes After Valve Intervention in Rheumatic Mitral Valve Disease.
Article in Global heart, 2025. 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.
- Early Detection and Treatment Opportunities for Children With Subclinical Rheumatic Heart Disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Practice and clinical outcomes of valvular surgery for rheumatic heart disease in africa: a scoping review.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2025Article
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
Background: Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) remains one of the leading causes of mitral valve (MV) disease in developing countries. Despite the availability of percutaneous and surgical interventions, long-term outcomes remain unclear. This study aims to identify determinants of outcomes following percutaneous or surgical intervention in patients with rheumatic MV disease, addressing critical gaps in treatment selection. Methods: A retrospective, intention-to-treat study was conducted on patients with symptomatic rheumatic MV disease, primarily characterized by mitral stenosis, who underwent either percutaneous mitral valvuloplasty (PMV) or MV replacement (MVR). Demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic variables were collected. The long-term outcome was defined as a composite of death, repeat PMV, need for cardiac surgery, and stroke. Results: A total of 246 patients were enrolled (mean age 43.8 ± 13 years, 80% women, with 45% in New York Heart Association [NYHA] class III/IV). Of these, 90 patients (37%) underwent MVR, while 156 patients (63%) underwent PMV, with similar clinical characteristics at baseline. During a mean follow-up of 2.8 years, ranging from 1 day to 7.8 years, 45 patients (18%) reached the composite outcome, including 11 deaths (4%). Long-term outcomes were comparable between PMV and MVR (P = 0.231). Independent predictors of composite outcomes included baseline NYHA class III/IV (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-4.11, P = 0.023) and older age (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, p = 0.020). Predictors of all-cause mortality following either PMV or MVR were older age (HR 1.08, 95% CI 1.03-1.14, P = 0.002) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99, P = 0.021). Conclusions: This study identified older age and higher NYHA functional class as significant predictors of composite outcomes in patients with rheumatic MV disease requiring intervention. Left ventricular systolic dysfunction was independently associated with increased mortality following both percutaneous and surgical intervention. Long-term outcomes were comparable between patients undergoing PMV and MVR, reinforcing PMV as an effective alternative to surgery in appropriately selected patients.
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.