ArticleJTCVS open2025
Valve-sparing aortic root replacement: Strategies to avoid residual aortic regurgitation.
Article in JTCVS open, 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.
- How to manage residual aortic regurgitation after an aortic valve-sparing operation: Practical tips.JTCVS structural and endovascular · 2026Article
- Computed tomography-based prediction of commissural positions facilitates valve-sparing aortic root replacement.JTCVS techniques · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study objective was to identify quantitative criteria to avoid residual aortic valve regurgitation after valve-sparing aortic root replacement. Methods: Between 2016 and 2023, 738 adult patients were recruited into the German Aortic Root Repair Registry. A total of 562 patients with datasets on aortic root measurements and tricuspid valve treated with reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement were selected. End points were any grade of residual aortic valve regurgitation and postrepair coaptation height. Tested variables included procedural and anatomic characteristics, including length of cusp margins and geometric cusp heights. Results: The optimal classifier predicting freedom from residual aortic valve regurgitation was cusp coaptation height 8 to 9 mm or more (sensitivity = 0.7-0.8). Annular downsizing alone was not useful to predict residual aortic valve regurgitation ( Conclusions: The target coaptation height after valve-sparing aortic root replacement should exceed 8 to 9 mm. Chances of achieving it can be estimated on the basis of a measurement of cusp quantity. If in doubt when inspecting a valve, numerical criteria can help with surgical decision-making in favor of or against a valve-sparing approach.
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.