ArticleJTCVS open2026
Clinical Outcomes of a New-Generation Surgical Aortic Bioprosthesis: A Noninferiority Study.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The Inspiris Resilia valve features novel anticalcification technology and based on the Magna Ease design (Edwards Lifesciences) has shown promising preclinical durability. However, its clinical benefit remains uncertain. This study presents the first noninferiority analysis comparing Inspiris Resilia and Magna Ease valves in a real-world cohort. Our aim is to evaluate clinical outcomes of the Inspiris Resilia compared with the Magna Ease valve, regarding noninferiority in all-cause mortality at up to 7 years follow-up. Methods: A retrospective noninferiority study was conducted at a single center in Vienna, including 1704 consecutive patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement between October 2008 and January 2024. After propensity score matching for age, sex, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II, valve size, isolated versus combined surgery, and periprocedural mortality, 554 patients were included in each group. Results: In the Cox proportional hazard model, the Inspiris Resilia valve demonstrated noninferiority in overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.791; 95% CI, 0.546-1.146). Cumulative survival at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years was 94.6%, 93.1%, 91.1%, and 86.8% for the Inspiris Resilia, and 94.8%, 91.9%, 87.7%, and 84.2% for the Magna Ease, respectively. Both groups displayed low rates of bioprosthetic valve failure. Mean age was 67.0 ± 8.6 years (Inspiris Resilia) and 67.7 ± 8.9 years (Magna Ease), with comparable European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II values (3.2 ± 3.4 vs 3.3 ± 3.2). Conclusions: This study establishes the Inspiris Resilia valve as at least equivalent to the Magna Ease in mid-term outcomes, while offering the potential to guide future surgical valve selection.
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.