ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Biomechanical comparison of intuity vs. perceval aortic bioprosthesis: apples & oranges or swings & roundabouts?
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRapid deployment (RD) and sutureless (SU) aortic valve replacement (AVR) are established strategies with proven benefits and ongoing evolution. In this study, we compare the clinical results and technical attributes of RDAVR and SUAVR with the two most commonly applied bioprostheses, the Edwards Intuity Valve System and the Perceval sutureless.
methodsN=19 patients with Intuity AVR were matched to N=19 with Perceval AVR from 2014 to 2020 at University Hospital Aachen, RWTH. Preoperative and postoperative data were compared. OSIRIX DICOM software was used for 4D stent analysis 30 days post-surgery. Additional in vitro evaluation of the Perceval and Intuity Valve Systems' radial forces was conducted.
resultsIn-hospital and 30-day mortality was 2/19(10.5%) in both groups. Patients in the Perceval group had higher MPG score value than those in the Intuity group (13.96 vs. 10.70; p=0.041). Patients in the Perceval group had significantly higher mean values of postoperative PPG than those in the Intuity group (26.34 vs. 19.52, p-value = 0.018). The Intuity group showed higher roundness in CT analyses after AVR and higher radial forces than the Intuity group during the in-vitro testing.
conclusionWe report interesting differences regarding the biomechanical behavior of the stents' ovality and radial forces of the two prostheses. However, the early postoperative clinical outcome remains comparable. Further studies with larger cohorts and long-term mechanical analysis are needed for deeper insights into this complex entity.
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.