ArticleJTCVS open2026
Moderate or severe aortic valve disease in patients with successful rheumatic mitral and tricuspid valve repair: Efforts to repair valve.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The management of aortic valve (AV) disease in patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) undergoing multivalve surgery remains uncertain. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of AV repair versus AV replacement in patients with RHD undergoing combined mitral and tricuspid valve repair. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 288 patients with RHD who underwent combined mitral and tricuspid valve repair with either AV repair (n = 122) or AV replacement (n = 166) at Beijing Anzhen Hospital from January 2015 to August 2024. The primary outcomes were overall survival and freedom from valve-related events. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to adjust for baseline differences and compare the groups. Results: The cohort had a mean age of 56.4 ± 9.8 years, and 33.3% were male. The AV repair group was younger and had less-severe baseline AV disease. After AV repair, 91.8% of patients achieved improved valve function. AV repair was associated with shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (147.6 vs 168.2 minutes) and aortic crossclamp times (117.9 vs 134.1 minutes), as well as lower postoperative mean AV gradients (13.1 vs 18.8 mm Hg). Residual aortic regurgitation occurred in 81.1% of the repair group, but severe AV dysfunction or reoperation was rare (4/122). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant difference in overall survival ( Conclusions: AV repair is a feasible and safe alternative to replacement in selected patients with RHD undergoing multivalve surgery, offering favorable early hemodynamics and comparable midterm outcomes.
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.