ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
The impact of perceval sutureless aortic valve in multiple valve surgery: implications of short- and mid-term outcomes-a propensity score matched study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Surgical Treatment of Severe Aortic Stenosis: Sutureless Versus Stented Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sutureless aortic valve replacement (S-AVR) is a surgical alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (C-AVR), recognized for its efficacy and clinical superiority in the treatment of valvular disease. Its use is gradually increasing not only in single-valve procedures but also in multiple valve surgeries. This study aimed to evaluate our experience with the Perceval S-AVR combined with mitral and tricuspid valve surgery such as multiple valve surgery, focusing on the clinical outcomes and operative time. Methods: Between January 2017 and December 2022, 141 patients underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the bioprosthetic aortic valve at our institution. Of them, 42 patients (29.8%) underwent S-AVR with multivalve surgery. After 1:1 propensity score matching, 42 patients were selected as study subjects in each group. The primary endpoints were 30-day and follow-up mortality and major valve-related adverse events, such as structural valve dysfunction, valve thrombus, endocarditis, stroke, re-intervention, and pacemaker implantation. Results: In matched cohort, the mean age 74.3±4.2 and 74.2±6.2 years in C-AVR and S-AVR groups, respectively. The in-hospital mortality rates were 2.4% and 0% (P>0.999), and follow-up mortality rates were 4.8% and 7.1% (P>0.99) in C-AVR and S-AVR groups, respectively. Paravalvular leakage and abnormal pressure acceleration were absent in both the groups, and the incidence of postoperative valve-related adverse events did not vary between the groups. The operation time, including for the mitral valve, tricuspid valve, and arrhythmia surgeries, was significantly shorter in the S-AVR group after matching (mean cardiopulmonary bypass time: 132.52±39.20 Conclusions: S-AVR may be considered a viable option in cases requiring multiple valve surgery, as it can reduce operation time without compromising clinical 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.