ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026
Mid-term outcomes and hemodynamic performance of Edwards 19-mm-labeled aortic valve bioprostheses: a single-center retrospective study.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with third-generation Edwards (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) 19-mm-labeled aortic valve bioprostheses, including a rapid-deployment sutureless valve (Intuity valve) for small aortic annuli at a high-volume Japanese heart center.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the outcomes of adult patients with symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, regurgitation, or valve deterioration who underwent 19-mm-labeled aortic valve bioprostheses replacement (Edwards products: Inspiris, Magna, and Intuity) for small aortic annuli at our center between January 2015 and August 2024. The primary and secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality after implantation and major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (MACCE), respectively. We also analyzed the hemodynamic performances of the different aortic bioprostheses.
resultsOverall, 137 patients (median age, 76 years [interquartile range (IQR): 72 - 80]; 122 females [89%]) underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with 19-mm Edwards aortic valve bioprostheses (Inspiris, n = 58; Magna, n = 69; Intuity, n = 10). The median follow-up duration was 71 months (IQR: 34 - 103). Overall survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years after valve replacement were 91.9%, 86.5%, and 84.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 85.9 - 95.5; 79.4 - 91.3; 77.4 - 89.9), respectively. Freedom from MACCE at 1, 3, and 5 years was 94.8%, 89.8%, and 88.8% (95%CI: 89.4 - 97.5; 83.0 - 93.9; 81.7 - 93.2), respectively. Among the three types of valves, the survival and rate of freedom from MACCE did not differ significantly (p = 0.29 and p = 0.48, respectively). Furthermore, no significant differences in hemodynamics were observed among the different aortic bioprostheses.
conclusionSurgical replacement using 19-mm-labeled Edwards aortic valve bioprostheses for small aortic annuli is a feasible therapeutic option in this population, demonstrating favorable early- and mid-term hemodynamic parameters.
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.