Affordable Access

deepdyve-link
Publisher Website

Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic valve prosthesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors
  • Diaz, Rocio1
  • Hernandez-Vaquero, Daniel2
  • Alvarez-Cabo, Ruben3
  • Avanzas, Pablo1
  • Silva, Jacobo4
  • Moris, Cesar5
  • Pascual, Isaac1
  • 1 Heart Area, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain. , (Spain)
  • 2 Heart Area, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain. Electronic address: [email protected] , (Spain)
  • 3 Heart Area, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain. , (Spain)
  • 4 Heart Area, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain; Department of Medicine, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain. , (Spain)
  • 5 Heart Area, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain; Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain; Department of Medicine, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain. , (Spain)
Type
Published Article
Journal
The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery
Publication Date
Sep 01, 2019
Volume
158
Issue
3
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.10.146
PMID: 30579533
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

In recent years, the use of surgically implanted biological aortic valves has been favored over mechanical prosthesis in patients between 50 and 70 years of age. However, outcomes on long-term survival are contradictory. The objective of this study was to determine if patients with mechanical valves have worse long-term survival than patients with biological prostheses. We systematically searched published studies that: (1) were propensity score-matched or randomized controlled trials; (2) provided survival data with a minimum follow-up of 5 years; and (3) included patients older than 50 and younger than 70 years of age. Review articles, case reports, and editorials were excluded. We conducted a meta-analysis on the basis of 2 types of analysis. A reconstruction of the database of each study to simulate a patient-level meta-analysis was performed. Log rank test of Kaplan-Meier curves was recalculated. Hazard ratio (HR) was calculated using a univariate Cox regression. In addition, we calculated a pooled HR using the fixed-effect inverse variance method. Four propensity score-matched studies and 1 randomized controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. Data of 4686 patients were analyzed. Survival rates for mechanical versus biological valves at 10 and 15 years of follow-up were: 76.78% (95% confidence interval [CI], 74.72%-78.69%) versus 74.09% (95% CI, 71.96%-76.08%), and 61.58% (95% CI, 58.29%-64.69%) versus 58.04% (95% CI, 54.57%-61.35%). Log rank test was statistically significant (P = .012) and the pooled HR was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.76-0.97; P = .01). Compared with biological aortic valves, mechanical valves are associated with a long-term survival benefit for patients between 50 and 70 years. Copyright © 2018 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times