Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Percutaneous Balloon Versus Surgical Closed and Open Mitral Commissurotomy: Seven-Year Follow-up Results of a Randomized Trial

Farhat, Mohamed Ben, Ayari, Mokdad, Maatouk, Faouzi, Betbout, Fethi, Gamra, Habib, Jarrar, Mourad, Tiss, Mabrouk, Hammami, Sonia, Thaalbi, Rafik, Addad, Faouzi·1998·Circulation

Abstract

Background —Percutaneous balloon mitral commissurotomy (BMC) has been proposed as an alternative to surgical closed mitral commissurotomy (CMC) and open mitral commissurotomy (OMC) for the management of rheumatic mitral valve stenosis (MS). Methods and Results —We conducted a prospective, randomized trial comparing the results of the 3 procedures in 90 patients (30 patients in each group) with severe pliable MS. Cardiac catheterization was performed in all patients before and at 6 months after each procedure. All patients had clinical and echocardiographic evaluation initially and throughout the 7-year follow-up period. Gorlin mitral valve area (MVA) increased much more after BMC (from 0.9±0.16 to 2.2±0.4 cm 2 ) and OMC (from 0.9±0.2 to 2.2±0.4 cm 2 ) than after CMC (from 0.9±0.2 to 1.6±0.4 cm 2 ). Residual MS (MVA <1.5 cm 2 ) was 0% after BMC or OMC and 27% after CMC. There was no early or late mortality or thromboembolism among the three groups. At 7-year follow-up, echocardiographic MVA was similar and greater after BMC and OMC (1.8±0.4 cm 2 ) than after CMC (1.3±0.3 cm 2 ; P <.001). Restenosis (MVA <1.5 cm 2 ) rate was 6.6% after BMC or OMC versus 37% after CMC. Residual atrial septal defect was present in 2 patients and severe grade 3 mitral regurgitation was present in 1 patient in the BMC group. Eighty-seven percent of patients after BMC and 90% of patients after OMC were in New York Heart Association functional class I versus 33% ( P <.0001) after CMC. Freedom from reintervention was 90% after BMC, 93% after OMC, and 50% after CMC. Conclusions —In contrast to surgical CMC, BMC and OMC produce excellent and comparable early hemodynamic improvement and are associated with a lower rate of residual stenosis and restenosis and need for reintervention. However, the good results, lower cost, and elimination of drawbacks of thoracotomy and cardiopulmonary bypass indicate that BMC should be the treatment of choice for patients with tight pliable rheumatic MS.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.97.3.245

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
Farhat, M. B., Ayari, M., Maatouk, F., Betbout, F., Gamra, H., Jarrar, M., Tiss, M., Hammami, S., Thaalbi, R., & Addad, F.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1998-01-27
Volume
97
Issue
3
Pages
245-250
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2000564993
Cited by
332
References
0
FWCI
9.90
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: Percutaneous Balloon Versus Surgical Closed and Open Mitral Commissurotomy: Seven-Year Follow-up Results of a Randomized Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.97.3.245
The paper
Farhat, M. B., Ayari, M., Maatouk, F., Betbout, F., Gamra, H., Jarrar, M., Tiss, M., Hammami, S., Thaalbi, R., & Addad, F. (1998). Percutaneous Balloon Versus Surgical Closed and Open Mitral Commissurotomy: Seven-Year Follow-up Results of a Randomized Trial. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.97.3.245

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.