ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2026
Beyond Boundaries: Proposing an Extended Role for Rapid Deployment Valves in Aortic Valve Redo Surgery.
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. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRedo surgical aortic valve replacement (rSAVR) poses challenges, particularly in anchoring a new prosthesis within a deteriorated annulus. While rapid deployment (RD) SAVR is not recommended for redo cases, we retrospectively analysed its potential expanded indication. The primary objective was to examine the potential expanded indication of RD rSAVR and the advantages it might confer, particularly in surgeries with prolonged intraoperative times.
methodsBetween January 2014 and March 2022, 37 patients underwent RD rSAVR (Edwards Intuity Elite rapid deployment valve system (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA)) due to structural valve degeneration, compared with 48 patients undergoing conventional rSAVR (crSAVR) for aortic stenosis. Data were collected retrospectively after gaining patient consent.
resultsNo significant difference in postoperative or intraoperative complications was obtained, no repeat surgery was performed due to valvular complications in either group, and only 1 paravalvular leak was noted in the crSAVR group. A very low new pacemaker rate was observed in both the groups (3% RD rSAVR vs 6% crSAVR). The cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and cross-clamping time is significantly lower in the RD rSAVR collective, which is reflected in the pure rSAVR after stratification according to concomitant procedures. On average, a 23 mm valve was selected in both the groups with comparable postoperative mean gradient. The RD group had a higher TIA rate (19% vs 0%, P = .002), though without residual neurological deficits, but no significant differences in postoperative stroke, respiratory complications, or mortality.
conclusionsRD rSAVR appears safe in redo settings, providing excellent haemodynamic results and time efficiency in experienced hands.
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.