ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Comparison of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in mitral stenosis surgery.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMitral stenosis is a common valvular heart disease, and the choice of valve material during surgical treatment significantly impacts patient prognosis. Currently, data on mid-term outcomes following valve replacement in Chinese patients with mitral stenosis are limited. This study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy and mid-term prognosis between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in mitral stenosis surgery.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 200 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement at our cardiac surgery department between January 2015 and December 2020. Patients were divided into mechanical valve group (n = 80) and bioprosthetic valve group (n = 120) based on the valve material used. Preoperative clinical data, surgical parameters, and postoperative follow-up data were recorded, including postoperative complications, valve-related events, survival rates, and quality of life scores. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 6 years.
resultsComparing baseline characteristics between the two groups, the mean age in the bioprosthetic valve group was significantly higher than in the mechanical valve group (65.7 ± 8.3 years vs. 52.4 ± 9.6 years, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in surgical mortality between the two groups (mechanical valve group 2.5% vs. bioprosthetic valve group 3.3%, P = 0.721). During the five-year follow-up period, the mechanical valve group had a higher incidence of bleeding complications than the bioprosthetic valve group (8.8% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.099), while the bioprosthetic valve group had a higher incidence of SVD than the mechanical valve group (7.5% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.049). The five-year survival rate was 92.5% in the mechanical valve group and 87.5% in the bioprosthetic valve group (P = 0.134).
conclusionFor patients with mitral stenosis, mechanical valves offer better durability but require lifelong anticoagulation therapy; bioprosthetic valves have fewer bleeding complications but carry the risk of valve deterioration. The choice of valve material should be individualized based on factors such as patient age, anticoagulation contraindications, and life expectancy. The results of this study provide important data on mid-term follow-up after valve replacement in a Chinese population.
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.