SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Comparing porcine versus bovine mitral valve replacement in terms of structural valve deterioration: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBioprosthetic mitral valve replacements (MVR) commonly utilize either bovine or porcine valves; however, in terms of structural valve deterioration (SVD), clinical superiority between these valve types remains controversial. The primary objective of this study was to directly compare structural valve deterioration between porcine and bovine bioprosthetic valves used in mitral valve replacement.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies directly comparing porcine and bovine bioprosthetic valves in MVR were identified through comprehensive searches of Embase, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases from inception through March 5, 2025. Eligible studies were cohort studies that directly compared bovine and porcine bioprosthetic valves implanted in the mitral position and reported SVD outcomes. The primary exposure was valve type, and the primary outcomes were reports of SVD. Data extraction included patient demographics, valve characteristics, SVD definitions, and modes of SVD. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for risk-of-bias assessment. Principal analyses involved narrative synthesis.
resultsNine studies comprising 6,945 patients (range per study: 240-1,695) with follow-up periods ranging from 3.5 to 15 years were included. Three studies favored porcine valves, two favored bovine valves, and four showed no significant difference in terms of SVD. Porcine valves frequently demonstrated leaflet tearing resulting in acute regurgitation, while bovine valves predominantly exhibited calcification leading to stenosis. Younger patients (< 65 years) generally showed better results with porcine valves. Despite variability across studies, cumulative evidence suggested a trend toward superior long-term durability of porcine bioprostheses.
conclusionsValve selection should be tailored to patient-specific factors, including age, anticipated longevity, clinical risk profile, and religious preference. Future studies should employ standardized definitions and longitudinal follow-up to clarify these findings.
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.