ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2025
Mid-Term Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Under 70: A Comparative Study of INSPIRIS RESILIA Versus PERIMOUNT MAGNA EASE Bioprostheses.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Long-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement using a third-generation stented bovine pericardial bioprosthesis in 1907 patients.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Valve-Related Outcomes up to Six Years of a Next-Generation Bovine Pericardial Bioprosthesis Compared with Its Predecessor: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Real-world early- to midterm outcomes of aortic valve replacement using novel tissue technology bioprosthesis at a high-volume center.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Propensity-adjusted 8-year outcomes following bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: The influence of novel anticalcification technology.JTCVS open · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesINSPIRIS RESILIA, launched in 2017, is a bioprosthetic aortic valve developed to improve durability and facilitate future valve-in-valve procedures. Despite its advanced design, many surgeons continue to use the PERIMOUNT MAGNA EASE valve, which has long-standing clinical validation. This study aimed to compare mid-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in patients under 70 undergoing aortic valve replacement with either prosthesis.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement between January 2018 and May 2023 at the University Hospital of Reims. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year following surgical aortic valve replacement. Secondary outcomes included haemodynamic parameters, left ventricular ejection fraction, and major postoperative complications such as reintervention, stroke, pacemaker implantation, mediastinitis, transfusion, and new-onset atrial fibrillation.
resultsA total of 300 patients were included: 52 received the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve and 248 received the PERIMOUNT MAGNA EASE valve. After matching, 52 patients from each group were compared. All-cause mortality at 3 years was 0% in the INSPIRIS group and 1.9% in the PERIMOUNT group. Mean transvalvular gradients were similar at 1 year (11.3 vs 11.2 mmHg) and 3 years (12.9 mmHg for both). Two cases of endocarditis-related reoperation occurred in the INSPIRIS group. No structural valve degeneration requiring surgery was observed. Postoperative aortic regurgitation was trivial or absent. Transfusion rates were lower in the INSPIRIS group (46.1% vs 69.2%, P = .017).
conclusionsINSPIRIS RESILIA and MAGNA EASE valves offer similar mid-term safety and performance in patients under 70 years of age.
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.