ArticleJTCVS open2025
Comparison of a novel mechanical valve versus stented bioprosthetic valves for isolated mitral valve replacement in patients older than 65 years.
Article in JTCVS open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare early and long-term clinical outcomes of bioprosthetic versus mechanical (On-X) mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients aged 65 years and older. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included consecutive patients equal to or older than 65 years underwent isolated MVR from 2005 to 2023. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to compare early- and long-term clinical outcomes between patients with bioprostheses and mechanical On-X valve. Results: A total of 330 patients were included, of whom 232 (70.3%) experienced bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (BMVR group) and 98 (29.7%) mechanical mitral valve replacement (MMVR group) with On-X prosthesis. Propensity score analysis allowed to match 98 patients from each group. In the matched cohorts, the overall survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 97.7%, 86.5%, and 69.5% for the MMVR group and 89.6%, 80.8%, and 62.5% for the BMVR (log-rank test: 1.88, Conclusions: In patients older than 65 years requiring isolated MVR, the use of On-X mechanical prosthesis showed comparable long-term outcomes over bioprostheses.
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.