ArticleGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2026
Neocuspidization versus bioprosthesis in surgical replacement of the aortic valve: a propensity-matched comparative analysis of immediate and mid-term outcomes.
Article in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2026. 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
objectivesThis study aims to compare the immediate and mid-term outcomes of Aortic Valve Neocuspidization (AVNeo) with surgical aortic valve replacement using a bioprosthesis (BioSAVR) to determine if neocuspidization can overcome limitations of current techniques.
methodsFrom December 2016 to December 2023, 155 patients received AVNeo at the Heart Institute, while 301 underwent BioSAVR. Baseline characteristics were balanced using 1:1 propensity matching.
results132 identical patient pairs were included in the analysis. Neocuspidization had longer ischemic times (98.67 ± 28.47 min vs. 66.76 ± 25.04 min, ρ < 0.001). Permanent pacemaker implantation (ρ = 0.072) and paravalvular leaks (ρ = 0.041) were more common in the BioSAVR group. Follow-up averaged 43.8 ± 27.30 months. Severe post-procedural aortic stenosis (PPAS) was more frequent after BioSAVR (3 (2.8%) vs. 1 (0.9%), ρ = 0.006), but AVNeo experienced more recurrent severe aortic regurgitation (AR) (3 (2.8%) vs. 0, ρ = 0.035). Reoperation rates were similar (AVNeo 3.1%, BioSAVR 1.5%, ρ = 0.680). Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) was responsible for half (2 cases) of the AVNeo reoperations. Survival rate during follow-up was comparable: 92.8% (AVNeo) and 94.4% (BioSAVR), ρ = 0.672.
conclusionsImmediate and mid-term AVNeo quality outcomes were comparable to those of BioSAVR. Transvalvular hemodynamics were better, and the incidence of PPAS was lower after AVNeo, supporting the recommendation of this procedure for patients at high risk of patient-prosthesis mismatch. During follow-up, AVNeo patients require close monitoring for recurrent AR and aggressive PVE prophylaxis. A multicenter long-term study is needed to confirm the stability of hemodynamic performance, the rate of Structural Valve Deterioration, and the incidence of PVE in AVNeo patients over the long term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41528587What 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.