ArticlePerfusion2026
Mitral valve repair versus replacement for endocarditis: A propensity-score matched analysis of early postoperative outcomes.
Article in Perfusion, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveWe sought to compare early postoperative outcomes between mitral valve repair (MVr) and replacement (MVR) in patients with mitral valve endocarditis.BackgroundThe optimal surgical approach for mitral valve endocarditis remains controversial, with some studies suggesting that mitral valve repair may be associated with better outcomes than mitral valve replacement and others suggesting no significant differences. This study compares the early postoperative outcomes between repair and replacement in this cohort using a large national database.MethodsA retrospective, propensity-score matched analysis was conducted using the national data from the United Kingdom, comparing 1381 patients who underwent repair and 3276 patients who underwent replacement between 2000 and 2019. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included prolonged admission (>10 days), re-exploration for bleeding, postoperative stroke, and postoperative dialysis. Binary logistic regression models were conducted in the matched group to further examine the relationship between procedure and outcomes.ResultsAfter propensity-score matching, 1249 pairs were identified. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the repair group (4% vs 7%,
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.