ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Minimally invasive or conventional sternotomy for concomitant mitral valve surgery and surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation: propensity score study.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Surgical ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) during mitral valve surgery is performed via minimally invasive (MICS) or conventional sternotomy (CS) approaches, with a paucity of comparative data. Objective: This study compared the efficacy and safety of MICS vs. CS for concomitant mitral valve surgery and AF ablation. Methods: From January 2012 to December 2024, 496 combined procedures were performed. After exclusions, 457 patients were analyzed (73 MICS, 384 CS). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to create balanced groups for comparison. Results: After PSM (61 MICS, 191 CS). cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, and total operative duration were longer in the MICS group ( Conclusion: Despite longer perfusion times and certain early recovery metrics, the MICS for combined mitral valve and AF surgery offers comparable long-term safety, efficacy, and rhythm control outcomes to CS. MICS should be considered a viable alternative, contingent upon surgical expertise and individualized patient assessment.
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.