ArticlePediatric cardiology2026
Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement in Dysfunctional Valved Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Conduits.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcatheter conduit rehabilitation and pulmonary valve replacement (TPVR) are standard of care in the management of right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) conduit dysfunction. There is a paucity of data on TPVR in polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) valved RVOT conduits. We aim to compare safety and efficacy of TPVR in PTFE to homograft RVOT conduits. Single center retrospective study of patients with a PTFE or homograft RVOT conduit who underwent TPVR from 2010 to 2021. Outcomes included change in conduit diameter and gradient and freedom from conduit injury. TPVR was performed in 56 patients with either a PTFE (n = 18) or homograft (n = 38) RVOT conduit. The PTFE group was younger (median 11.7 vs. 22.8 years; p < 0.001), smaller (median 36.5 vs. 71.5 kg; p = 0.002), and had smaller pre-intervention conduit diameter (median 10.9 vs. 13 mm; p = 0.02). Both groups were comparable in degree of baseline stenosis and gradient reduction, with greater increase in conduit diameter from nominal to post-intervention in the PTFE group (107.5% vs. 100%, p = 0.03). Overall, 13% (n = 7) of patients manifested conduit injury, with only 1 in the PTFE group (6% vs. 16%; p = 0.28). The safety and efficacy profiles of TPVR in PTFE and homograft RVOT conduits were similar. Despite smaller nominal diameters in the PTFE cohort, overdilation to accommodate TPVR is feasible without increased evidence of conduit injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42606545What 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.