ArticleJTCVS open2026
Indications for and characteristics of redo aortic valve replacement after primary mechanical aortic valve replacement.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To define the indications and characteristics for redo aortic valve replacement (AVR) after primary mechanical AVR and to determine whether operative indication influences early and late outcomes. Methods: We analyzed 379 consecutive patients undergoing redo AVR after previous mechanical AVR (2000-2023) at a single tertiary center. Baseline, operative, and outcomes data were obtained from a prospectively maintained database and electronic health records. Outcomes were compared across principal indications, with survival estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and predictors of mortality identified using multivariable Cox regression. Results: Median age at redo surgery was 61.8 years (interquartile range, 52.4-69.4 years); 61.2% were male. The median interval to reoperation was 10.2 years (3.9-18.2). Indications included endocarditis (26.6%), pannus obstruction (18.7%), prosthesis-patient mismatch (11.6%), and elective replacement during aortic surgery (16.0%). Endocarditis cases were frequently nonelective and had longer operative times, greater complication rates, and greater operative mortality (13.0% vs 1.4% pannus and 3.4% others; Conclusions: Redo AVR after previous mechanical AVR is uncommon and arises from heterogeneous indications. Early risk is greatest with endocarditis and nonelective presentation, whereas long-term survival is driven largely by comorbidities rather than indication or prosthesis type. These findings may guide risk assessment, prosthesis selection, and timing of intervention.
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.