ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2026
Bovine Pericardial Versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of Mid-Term Durability Outcomes.
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Expanding the Toolbox for Mitral Valve-in-Valve Therapy: Innovation Demands Evidence.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe optimal choice of bioprosthetic valve for mitral valve replacement (MVR) remains controversial, with prior studies reporting inconsistent outcomes. This study aimed to compare mid-term clinical performance between bovine pericardial and porcine bioprostheses using a hierarchical composite end-point reflecting both durability and clinical relevance, including cardiac death, reoperation, and haemodynamic structural valve deterioration (SVD).
methodsThis retrospective study included 304 patients (152 per group) who underwent bioprosthetic MVR between 2007 and 2020, following 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of cardiac death, reoperation for SVD, and echocardiographic diagnosis of haemodynamic SVD. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and perioperative complications.
resultsThe median clinical follow-up durations were 7.3 years in the bovine group and 5.3 years in the porcine group. The win ratio was 1.49 (95% CI, 1.21-1.83; P < .001), indicating a statistically significant difference favouring the bovine group. While overall survival and freedom from cardiac death were comparable between groups, the cumulative incidence of reoperation for SVD and haemodynamic SVD diagnosis were significantly higher in the porcine group (Gray's P = .031 and 0.037, respectively).
conclusionsIn this propensity-matched analysis, bovine pericardial valves showed a modest, consistent mid-term durability signal on SVD-related components, with similar overall survival. These findings are hypothesis-generating and should inform individualized prosthesis selection rather than dictate device choice; model-specific prospective studies, ideally randomized controlled trials, are needed for definitive guidance.
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.