ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
Early comparison of one-year outcomes after aortic mechanical vs. biological valve replacement in Chinese patients with small aortic annulus.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compares short-term clinical and hemodynamic outcomes of AVR using mechanical versus bovine pericardial valves in patients with a small aortic annulus (≤ 21 mm) and evaluates the feasibility and safety of AVR in this population.
methodsBetween November 2020 and November 2022, 142 patients with a small aortic valve annulus underwent AVR at Wuhan Asia Heart Hospital, with 73 patients in mechanical group and 69 in biological group. All patients met the surgical criteria for AVR. Baseline data, historical diseases, preoperative and follow-up echocardiographic results, and surgical-related data were shown in this study.
resultsAll patients successfully underwent surgery. In the mechanical valve group, four perioperative deaths occurred due to multiple organ failure, respiratory and cardiac arrest and circulatory failure. After one-year follow-up, hemodynamic parameters improved in both groups compared with preoperative values. Although the mechanical valve group demonstrated lower peak pressure gradients and maximum velocity compared with the bioprosthetic valve group in the follow-up period (P < 0.05), the bioprosthetic valve group exhibited shorter Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay(3.6 ± 2.5d vs. 5.3 ± 7.9d, P < 0.001 ) and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) times (178.1 ± 89.0 min vs. 192.4 ± 124.3 min, P = 0.032), and fewer postoperative complications at the one-year follow-up (4.3% vs. 14.9%, P = 0.026). No cerebrovascular events, valve dysfunction, or structural valve degeneration were observed in either group during the follow-up period.
conclusionsBoth mechanical and bioprosthetic valves showed excellent short-term outcomes in small aortic annulus patients. Bioprosthetic valves were comparable to mechanical valves, with potential benefits in reducing ICU stay, CPB time, and complications. For elderly patients, bioprosthetic valves are a safe and effective alternative in small aortic annulus AVR.
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.