ArticleJTCVS techniques2026
Long-term results of mitral valve repair using leaflet resection versus chordae replacement.
Article in JTCVS techniques, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resection versus cordal implantation for degenerative mitral regurgitation: Devil in the details.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
- Reply: Failure of mitral valve repair using chordal replacement: The devil we do not yet understand.JTCVS techniques · 2026Article
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 available data on long-term durability of mitral valve repair using chordae replacement versus leaflet resection for degenerative mitral regurgitation (MR) is contradictory. Although some studies report equal long-term durability, others demonstrate worse durability for chordae replacement. Methods: All consecutive patients receiving mitral valve repair using chordae replacement versus leaflet resection for degenerative MR from January 2003 to December 2010 at a high-volume single center were analyzed. Long-term survival, cumulative incidence of reoperation, and recurrent MR as well as echocardiographic follow-up were investigated. Results: In total, 658 patients were included. Median follow-up was 13.6 years (interquartile range, 9.5-16.0 years). Chordae replacement and leaflet resection were performed in 72.5% (n = 477) and 24.2% (n = 159) of cases, respectively. At unadjusted analysis, cases of leaflet resection tended to have worse survival when compared with cases of chordae replacement (66.3% ± 4.1% vs 77.2% ± 2.3% at 15 years; Conclusions: Mitral valve repair using chordae replacement was associated with slightly higher survival rates and significantly higher cumulative incidence of MR recurrence and reoperation when compared with mitral valve repair using leaflet resection.
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.