ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025
Mitral Valve Surgery with and Without Mitral Annular Disjunction: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesDespite growing awareness of mitral annular disjunction's (MAD) clinical significance, robust data regarding the outcomes of surgical interventions on MAD remain sparse. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of mitral valve (MV) surgery in patients with MAD.
methodsA systematic review was conducted from inception until May 2025 for studies comparing patients undergoing MV surgery with and without MAD and was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42025649821.
resultsPatients with MAD were generally younger (59.3 ± 5.0 vs. 63.4 ± 2.2 years, standardized mean difference: -0.3073), had fewer comorbidities but more complex valve lesions (41.0% vs. 13.7%, risk difference: 0.2627) compared to those without MAD. MV replacement was performed less frequently in the MAD group than in the No-MAD group (risk ratio, RR: 0.690 [95% confidence interval, CI: 0.508; 0.937],
conclusionsThis meta-analysis revealed significant baseline differences between the populations. Our findings suggest that patients with MAD remained at significantly higher risk for both postoperative and long-term arrhythmias. These results highlight the need for close arrhythmic surveillance in this population.
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.