SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2026
Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement Versus Redo Surgical Mitral Valve Replacement: Meta-Analysis of Early and Late Outcomes.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBioprosthetic mitral valve degeneration is traditionally treated with redo surgical mitral valve replacement (redo-SMVR), but valve-in-valve transcatheter mitral valve replacement (ViV-TMVR) offers a less invasive alternative.
methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ViV-TMVR and redo-SMVR. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases (inception to September 2025) were searched. Meta-analyses were conducted with random-effects models to assess patient-relevant outcomes; Kaplan-Meier-derived time-to-event data were pooled to assess late outcomes.
resultsThirteen observational studies met our eligibility criteria, including 15 941 patients (ViV-TMVR: 5465; redo-SMVR: 10476). In comparison with redo-SMVR, ViV-TMVR was associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.72 [95% CI, 0.57-0.90];
conclusionsIn patients amenable to ViV-TMVR, this procedure shows a lower initial risk of death and complications, but higher mortality after 6 months in comparison with redo-SMVR. These findings highlight the importance of striking a balance between upfront surgical risk and estimated life expectancy when selecting interventions.
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.