ArticleJTCVS open2026
Cardiac valve prosthesis choice for left-sided infective endocarditis in Medicare patients.
Article in JTCVS open, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the outcomes between bioprosthetic and mechanical prosthesis choice for aortic valve and mitral valve infective endocarditis (IE) in patients >65 years old. Methods: Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files from 2011 to 2019 were queried for adult patients >65 years old with de novo IE who underwent isolated bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (bAVR), mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR), bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (bMVR), or mechanical mitral valve replacement (mMVR). Patients with preoperative ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke were excluded. Analyses were conducted separately for the aortic and mitral position: bAVR versus mAVR, and bMVR versus mMVR. Propensity score matching was used to account for measured confounders. The primary outcome was 5-year overall survival analyzed using restricted mean survival time; secondary outcomes were the 5-year cumulative incidences of valve reoperation, heart failure readmission, recurrent IE, bleeding, and ischemic stroke analyzed using Fine-Gray regression with death as a competing risk. Results: Matching yielded 330 patients in each AVR group and 250 patients in each MVR group. Five-year survival favored bAVR over mAVR (66.1% vs 56.7%, RMST: 3.96 years vs 3.46 years, Conclusions: This analysis of patients >65 years old with left-sided IE demonstrated that mechanical valves were associated with worse early mortality, no 5-year survival advantage over bioprosthetic valves, and provide no benefit in this 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.