Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42082977›Full record

ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2026

Outcomes and financial comparison of percutaneous debulking versus surgical management of tricuspid endocarditis.

Sanjhai L Ramdeen, Sahaj S Shah, Clement J Rajakumar, Jordan G Law, Kent A Strohecker, Stephanie A Buczkowski, Damian D Mason, Michael E Friscia, Michael A Bresticker, Shikhar Agarwal and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Sanjhai L RamdeenDepartment of General Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Sahaj S ShahGeisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, USA.
Clement J RajakumarGeisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, USA.
Jordan G LawPhenomic Analytics and Clinical Data Core, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USA.
Kent A StroheckerDepartment of Revenue Management, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USA.
Stephanie A BuczkowskiDepartment of Research, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Damian D MasonDepartment of Research, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Michael E FrisciaDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Michael A BrestickerDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Shikhar AgarwalDivision of Cardiology, Geisinger Medical Center, Danville, PA, USA.
Carlo R BartoliGeisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, USA. crbartoli@geisinger.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntravenous drug abuse (IVDA) has increased the incidence of infective endocarditis. Standard management includes traditional open surgery and more recently described percutaneous tricuspid valve debulking. Study goals were to compare clinical outcomes and identify financial differences between percutaneous tricuspid debulking and tricuspid surgery for isolated tricuspid valve endocarditis.

methodsA single-center, retrospective cohort patient study of isolated tricuspid valve endocarditis was performed. Patients underwent either percutaneous debulking with the AngioVac system (n=14, 83% IVDA) or tricuspid valve surgery (n=23, 76% IVDA). Length of stay, readmission rates, mortality, echocardiographic parameters, hematologic markers, transfusion rates, and total charges for index hospitalization were evaluated between groups.

resultsIn patients who underwent either percutaneous debulking or open surgery, length of stay (17±17 vs 20±13 days, p=0.48), 30-day readmission (29% vs 26%, p=0.87), in-hospital mortality (7% vs 0%, p=0.20), and 30-day mortality (7% vs 0%, p=0.20) were not statistically different. One-year mortality (21% vs 4%, p=0.11) trended toward but did not reach significance. Postoperative tricuspid valve regurgitation (2.5±1.1 vs 1.0±0.3, p<0.0001) and transfusion rates (2±3 vs 6±6 units, p=0.02) were significantly different between therapies. Total charges for hospitalization were not statistically different ($557,066±457,520 vs $571,615±324,254, p=0.91).

conclusionsTricuspid debulking is a potential alternative to surgery for patients with infective tricuspid endocarditis. Similar outcomes, costs, and avoidance of prosthetic material in patients with active IVDA are potential benefits.

Indexed as

Cardiac Surgical ProceduresEndocarditisTricuspid ValveAdultFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSubstance Abuse, IntravenousTreatment OutcomeAngioVacEndocarditisIntravenous drug abusePercutaneous debulkingReplacementTricuspid valve repairVegectomy

Identifiers

PMID42082977
PMCPMC13288827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.