ArticleJTCVS open2026
Impact of valve position and prosthesis type on outcomes of valve replacement in end-stage renal disease patients with infective endocarditis.
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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: End-stage renal disease patients with infective endocarditis face high operative risk and poor survival. We sought to compare outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in end-stage renal disease infective endocarditis, stratified by valve position. Methods: Consecutive end-stage renal disease patients with acute infective endocarditis (2015-2020) in the US Renal Data System who underwent valve replacement were included and stratified by valve position and prosthesis type. Outcomes included mortality, reinfection, reoperation, and stroke. Mortality, reinfection, and stroke were assessed with cumulative incidence functions using transplant and death as competing risks, respectively. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used for covariate balance, and cubic splines modeled age-prosthesis interactions. Results: Of 1562 patients, 595 underwent aortic valve replacement, 685 underwent mitral valve replacement, 238 underwent aortic valve replacement + mitral valve replacement, and 44 underwent tricuspid valve replacement. Bioprosthetic valves were used in 73.4%. Operative mortality was 14.5% overall, lowest in aortic valve replacement (10.8%) and highest in aortic valve replacement + mitral valve replacement (23.5%; Conclusions: Mortality for end-stage renal disease patients undergoing valve replacement for infective endocarditis is high, with outcomes varying by valve position. Prosthesis type did not consistently affect survival, reinfection, or stroke. These findings highlight the limited impact of prosthesis type and emphasize the importance of broader perioperative and systemic management strategies.
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.