Trial reportPloS one2025
Efficacy and safety of PM-AR-T versus edwards MC3 rings in tricuspid regurgitation: A non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 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
objectivesTricuspid valve repair, particularly with annuloplasty rings, is increasingly recognized as an effective treatment. PM-AR-T is a semi-rigid annuloplasty ring based on a nickel-titanium alloy which has made progress in animal models, however, studies on PM-AR-T's performance in patients with tricuspid regurgitation (TR) are lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the PM-AR-T with the Edwards MC3 ring for the TR treatment.
methodsA non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 20 centers across China, enrolling patients with tricuspid valve disease requiring surgical repair. Patients were randomized to receive either PM-AR-T or Edwards MC3 ring. The primary endpoint was the success rate of valve repair at 6 months.
resultsA total of 164 patients underwent valve annuloplasty, 83 and 81 in the PM-AR-T and Edwards MC3 groups. Valve repair success rates were 92.8% and 93.8% in the PM-AR-T and Edwards MC3 groups, demonstrating non-inferiority with a difference of -1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -9.5 to 7.4), which was less than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10%. No significant intergroup differences were found in valve regurgitation, echocardiographic parameters, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification at any postoperative time point. At 12 months, the proportions of patients without regurgitation were comparable, 30.4% and 27.8% in the PM-AR-T and Edwards MC3 groups (P = 0.705). Improvement to NYHA functional class I status was detected in 46.2% and 45.6% of the two groups by 12 months (P = 0.893). Both rings exhibited comparable safety profiles, with no device-related serious adverse events, cardiovascular deaths, major bleeding events, severe structural damage, infective endocarditis, or thromboembolic events.
conclusionsThe PM-AR-T tricuspid valve semi-rigid ring is effective in improving TR, demonstrating non-inferiority to the Edwards MC3 ring, with a favorable safety profile. Clinical Trial Registration: This study was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2100043007).
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.