ArticleJTCVS techniques2025
Quadricuspid aortic valve repair: Results of a phenotype-based approach.
Article in JTCVS techniques, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Quadricuspid aortic valve (QAV) anatomy is a rare congenital anomaly. Patients develop relevant aortic regurgitation (AR), commonly between the fourth and sixth decades of life. Various approaches to repair have been proposed, but mid-term data are lacking. The present study aimed to investigate late results of QAV repair using different repair concepts. Methods: Between 2004 and 2023, 19 patients (32% male; mean age, 46 ± 12 years; range, 26-60 years) underwent QAV repair. The mean duration of follow-up was 6.3 ± 5 years (range, 4 months to 19 years), and follow-up was 96% complete. Patients underwent surgery for isolated AR (n = 18) or combined valve disease (n = 1). Three patients (16%) had concomitant ascending aortic dilatation. Results: The majority of patients underwent design change-tricuspidization (n = 13; 68%) or bicuspidization (n = 3; 16%)-of the QAV; the valve was left quadricuspid in 3 patients (16%). Sinotubular junction remodeling was performed by adding a sinotubular suture (n = 7; 37%) or by ascending aortic replacement (n = 3; 16%). All patients were alive at 5 years and 10 years postoperation; 2 required late aortic valve reoperation. Freedom from reoperation was 82% at 12 years (86% after tricuspidizdation and 67% after bicuspidization). The 3 patients whose valve remained quadricuspid did not require reoperation after 2 years, 3 years, and 5 years. Overall freedom from AR >2 was 76% at 12 years. At last follow-up, 2 patients had a mean gradient of 21 mm Hg, both of whom had undergone bicuspidization. Conclusions: QAVs can be repaired by different methods, including tricuspidization and bicuspidization. If the quadricuspid morphology is preserved, stabilization of annular and sinotubular dimensions may achieve a stable result.
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.