SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Expanding indications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation: time for valve-in-valve in mechanical prosthesis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Following the recent first-in-human experience of Valve in Mechanical Valve (ViMech), interest has emerged in understanding how frequently such an approach might be required in clinical practice. We performed an exploratory meta-analysis to characterize the long-term burden of valve-related complications and reintervention after mechanical aortic valve replacement. Methods: Systematic literature search identified studies reporting outcomes of the five most used mechanical aortic valve models (Medtronic/ATS, St. Jude, Carbomedics, Bicarbon, On-X). Descriptive analysis and random-effects meta-analysis assessed late all-cause and valve-related mortality and complications (bleeding, thromboembolism, valve thrombosis, endocarditis, paravalvular leak, reintervention), expressed per 100 patient-years. Results: Thirty-two studies encompassing 24,960 patients undergoing mechanical valve replacement were assessed. Isolated mechanical aortic valve replacement was reported in all 32 studies (13,890 patients; 98,987 patient-years; mean follow-up 7.1 years); mean age at implantation was 57.9 years (95% CI 56.3-59.6) and 43% (38-49) were female. Pooled all-cause mortality was 2.39 per 100 patient-years (95% CI 1.92-2.99) and valve-related mortality was 0.55 (0.41-0.73) per 100 patient-years. Bleeding (0.22 [0.16-0.30]) and thromboembolic events (0.18 [0.12-0.25]) were the leading causes of valve-related death. Thromboembolic events (0.94 [0.77-1.14]) and bleeding (0.85 [0.65-1.10]) were the most frequent non-fatal complications, considerably more common than reintervention (0.36 [0.28-0.48] per 100 patient-years). All-cause mortality and complication rates were broadly similar across valve models. Conclusions: Mechanical aortic valves show excellent long-term durability with low reintervention rates. Nevertheless, valve-related complications, mainly bleeding and thromboembolism, suggest a small but clinically relevant population in whom redo surgery may carry substantial risk, providing epidemiological context for emerging Valve in Mechanical Valve strategies. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251002419, identifier CRD420251002419.
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.