Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50–69 years

Glaser, Natalie, Jackson, Veronica, Holzmann, Martin J., Franco-Cereceda, Anders, Sartipy, Ulrik·2016·European Heart Journal

Abstract

AIMS: The objective was to investigate the long-term all-cause mortality in patients aged 50-69 years after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic or mechanical valves. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients aged 50-69 years who had undergone AVR in Sweden 1997-2013 were identified from the Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies register. Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health-data registers provided patient characteristics, vital status, and clinical outcomes. Of the 4545 patients, 60% (2713/4545) had received mechanical valves and 40% (1832/4545) bioprostheses. In 1099 propensity score-matched patient pairs, 16% (180/1099) had died in the mechanical valve group and 20% (217/1099) in the bioprosthetic group; mean follow-up 6.6 (maximum 17.2) years. Survival was higher in the mechanical than in the bioprosthetic group: 5-, 10-, and 15-year survival 92, 79, and 59% vs. 89, 75, and 50%; hazard ratio 1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.66; P = 0.006. There was no difference in stroke [subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 1.04; 95% CI 0.72-1.50, P = 0.848]; however, the risk for aortic valve reoperation was higher (sHR 2.36; 95% CI 1.42-3.94, P = 0.001), and for major bleeding lower (sHR 0.49; 95% CI 0.34-0.70, P < 0.001), in patients who had received bioprostheses than in those with mechanical valves. CONCLUSION: Patients aged 50-69 years who received mechanical valves had better long-term survival after AVR than those with bioprostheses. The risk of stroke was similar; however, patients with bioprostheses had a higher risk of aortic valve reoperation and a lower risk of major bleeding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02276950. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02276950.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv580

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 286

Metadata

Authors
Glaser, N., Jackson, V., Holzmann, M. J., Franco-Cereceda, A., & Sartipy, U.
Venue
European Heart Journal
Published
2015-11-11
Volume
37
Issue
34
Pages
2658-2667
ISSN
  • 0195-668X (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-9645
OpenAlex
W2272852096
Cited by
286
References
21
FWCI
14.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50–69 years. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv580
The paper
Glaser, N., Jackson, V., Holzmann, M. J., Franco-Cereceda, A., & Sartipy, U. (2016). Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50–69 years. European Heart Journal. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv580

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.