ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
A single-center study on prosthesis selection strategy in aortic valve replacement for patients aged 50-65 years.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From biomechanical mechanisms to clinical reasoning: Deciphering mechanobiological drivers of aortic valve calcification for precision therapy.Mechanobiology in medicine · 2026Review
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: The optimal valve type for middle-aged AVR patients remains debated with inconsistent guideline recommendations. To explore valve selection strategy for 50- to 65-year-old undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) by comparing long-term outcomes of mechanical vs. biological artificial valves, with age stratification (≤60/>60 years) to guide clinical decisions. Methods: A retrospective cohort study analyzed 341 patients (2009-2016) undergoing valve replacement surgery, categorized into mechanical valve (n=155) and biological valve (n=186) groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1) was performed in the overall cohort, as well as in the <60- and ≥60-year subgroups to balance baselines confouders. We regarded all-cause mortality as the primary endpoint while major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) served as the secondary endpoint. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified prognostic factors. Results: After PSM, In the overall cohort, mechanical valve recipients had significantly longer MACE-free survival [hazard ratio (HR) =2.007, P=0.004] Conclusions: For patients aged 50- to 65-years-old who require AVR, overall and MACE-free survival is comparable between mechanical and biological valves. Mechanical valves are associated with more favorable MACE-free survival in those under 60 years of age, but individualized selection remains crucial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.