ReviewCureus2025
Use of Mechanical Versus Biological Aortic Valve in Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery for Patients Aged 60-70 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the cardiac surgical procedures that is performed in a steady number over time in the United Kingdom (UK) is aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery, especially in those aged 60-70 years old.There has been various debates regarding which valve has better outcome in this group, and no guidelines have fixed recommendation for it. This research aims to examine the effects of AVR surgeries involving mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in individuals between the ages of 60 and 70. This metanalysis study was conducted by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, using secondary data from previous published studies. Outcomes include mortality, re-operation, thromboembolic event, and bleeding event. Inclusion criteria include direct comparison of using mechanical and biological valves, involve patients aged 60-70 years, and provide sufficient details of hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR), and Kaplan-Meier curves. Collected data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29.0. We found that there Is a significant protective effect of mechanical valve on mortality compared to bioprosthetic valve (p = 0.00) and reoperation (p = 0.00). We conclude that mechanical valve emerges as a favorable option for SAVR in patients aged 60-70 years.
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.