ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2026
Advances in surgical treatment for valvular heart disease: a narrative review of 2025 studies.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: The field of surgical treatment for valvular heart disease (VHD) has progressed rapidly in 2025. This review aims to summarize the year's key research, focusing on comparisons of mainstream techniques for aortic, mitral, and tricuspid valve diseases, innovations in repair techniques, and advances in emerging technologies, to provide evidence-based support for individualized clinical decision-making. Methods: A structured search of PubMed database was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), registry studies, and meta-analyses published in 2025, and the evidence was synthesized narratively. Key Content and Findings: In the aortic valve arena, long-term follow-up from the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk trials confirmed the non-inferiority of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low-risk patients. However, real-world data suggested higher long-term risks with TAVR in patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) and younger patients, whereas women demonstrated greater benefit. The indication for early intervention in asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) was reinforced. Aortic valve repair and the Ross procedure accumulated more robust evidence for long-term survival and quality of life in younger patients. In the mitral valve domain, the MITRACURE study highlighted gaps between real-world practice and guidelines, including delayed referral and suboptimal repair rates for mitral regurgitation (MR). The advantages of repair for degenerative disease were further solidified, though techniques for posterior leaflet prolapse and management strategies for atrial functional regurgitation (AFMR) require optimization. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) was increasingly used in high-risk patients but yielded inferior long-term outcomes compared to surgery, and surgical rescue after failed TEER carried high risk. For the tricuspid valve, comparative effectiveness of transcatheter Conclusions: The 2025 evidence reinforces a paradigm shift from risk-score-based decision-making toward individualized valve care. Transcatheter techniques have expanded their indications, but surgery remains irreplaceable in young, low-risk, and BAV patients, as well as in degenerative MR. Real-world gaps in guideline adherence, delayed referral, and suboptimal repair rates require urgent attention. Emerging technologies show early promise, although their long term durability and clinical value await further validation.
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.