Heart valve prosthesis selection in patients with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: There is little evidence guiding heart valve prosthesis selection in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on dialysis. OBJECTIVES: To perform: 1) a systematic review of studies examining valve replacement in patients with ESRD on dialysis; and 2) a quantitative meta-analysis comparing survival and valve-related outcomes following valve replacement with bioprostheses versus mechanical prostheses in this population. DATA SOURCES: English studies published from 1990 onwards. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they compared bioprostheses with mechanical prostheses in patients with ESRD on dialysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Extracted summary estimates included the hazard ratio (HR) for death, and the odds ratio (OR) for developing valve-related complications due to the use of bioprostheses versus mechanical prosthesis. RESULTS: Twelve studies published from 1997 to 2010 were included in this review, of which 9 were used in the meta-analysis. No evidence of publication bias was detected. The aortic valve was the most common valve replaced in these studies (4339/6350), although 11 of the 12 studies also included mitral or multiple valve replacements. No difference in survival was observed between valve types (bioprostheses versus mechanical prostheses hazard ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.0-1.9, p = 0.09). However, valve replacement with bioprostheses was associated with fewer valve-related complications compared to mechanical prostheses (odds ratio 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of the published literature demonstrates no survival difference following valve replacement with either bioprostheses or mechanical prosthesis in patients with ESRD on dialysis. Bioprosthetic valve replacement was associated with fewer valve-related complications. Although this meta-analysis cannot discriminate between the sites of valve implant, these data can likely be extended to include at least aortic valve replacement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".