ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease2025
Clinical outcomes after implantation of bioprosthetic valves in adults with congenital heart disease.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Congenital heart disease, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bioprosthetic valves are frequently implanted in adults with congenital heart disease (CHD), but comprehensive data on bioprosthetic valve longevity and outcomes across all valve positions are lacking. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and risk factors for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction (BVD) across all valve positions in adults with CHD. Method: BVD was defined as Doppler mean gradient >40 mmHg and/or severe prosthetic/periprosthetic regurgitation for aortic or pulmonary bioprostheses, or Doppler mean gradient >10 mmHg and/or severe prosthetic/periprosthetic regurgitation for mitral or tricuspid bioprostheses. Results: There were 1221 adults with CHD that underwent implantation of a bioprosthetic valve (age 39 ± 16 years, males 617 [51 %]). At the time of valve implantation, 755 (62 %), 325 (27 %), 176 (14 %), and 21 (1.7 %) received a bioprosthetic valve in the pulmonary, tricuspid, aortic, and mitral positions, respectively. The 10-year cumulative incidence of BVD was 28 %, 36 %, 43 %, and 68 % for pulmonary, tricuspid, aortic, and mitral bioprosthetic valves, respectively (p < 0.001). Using the pulmonary valve position as the reference group, valve position (tricuspid [HR 1.26, 95 % CI 1.09-1.58), aortic [HR 1.64, 95 % CI 1.22-1.97], mitral [HR 2.01, 95 % CI 0.83-4.05]) were associated with higher risk of BVD. Younger age was associated higher risk of BVD (HR 0.95, 95 % CI 0.86-0.98 per 5-year increment). Conclusions: These data support the existing evidence that left-sided bioprosthetic valves demonstrate reduced durability in young patients and should be included in counseling and clinical decision-making.
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.