ArticleReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Stented Biological Prosthesis Versus Mitral Allograft in Surgical Treatment of Tricuspid Valve Infective Endocarditis.
Article in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06591000 (Clinical Efficacy and Long-term Outcomes of Allograft Versus Stented Biological Prosthesis for Primary Tricuspid Valve Disease), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Efficacy and Long-term Outcomes of Allograft Versus Stented Biological Prosthesis for Primary Tricuspid Valve Disease
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of tricuspid valve (TV) infective endocarditis (IE) continues to increase among patients with drug addictions and chronic vascular access or cardiac electronic devices. Moreover, long-term mortality and morbidity following surgery with conventional prostheses remain high. Allografts may represent a suitable alternative in tricuspid surgery. This study aimed to compare outcomes between stented biological valves and mitral allografts (MAs) for tricuspid valve replacement (TVR). Methods: A total of 54 patients with IE underwent TVR using either a stented bioprosthesis (B) or MA between January 2016 and July 2024. Clinical and echocardiographic data were analyzed in accordance with the Tricuspid-Valve Academic Research Consortium (T-VARC) criteria. Early safety, clinical efficacy, and time-to-event survival were compared between the two equal B and MA groups. Results: There were no in-hospital or 30-day mortality, nor cardiac, cerebral, and wound complications in either group. The peak and mean pressure gradient (PG) on TV after surgery were 9.2 (6.5-12.0) and 4.0 (3.2-6.0) mmHg in the B group versus 6.0 (4.5-7.5) and 3.0 (2.0-4.0) mmHg in the MA group ( Conclusion: Application of contemporary endpoint criteria demonstrated superior outcomes with MA, including lower cardiovascular mortality, reduced PPI, fewer recurrent endocarditis, decreased reoperations, cardiac hospitalizations, alongside improved patient-reported outcomes. Time-to-event analysis demonstrated benefits in cardiovascular survival and PPI avoidance with allografts. Mitral allograft may be a preferable alternative valve substitute for TVR in patients with IE. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06591000, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06591000?term=NCT06591000&rank=1, registration date: September 19, 2024.
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.