Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Sep 28:354:i5065.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.i5065.

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

Farid Foroutan  1 , Gordon H Guyatt  2 , Kathleen O'Brien  3 , Eva Bain  3 , Madeleine Stein  3 , Sai Bhagra  3 , Daegan Sit  2 , Rakhshan Kamran  2 , Yaping Chang  2 , Tahira Devji  2 , Hassan Mir  2 , Veena Manja  4 , Toni Schofield  3 , Reed A Siemieniuk  5 , Thomas Agoritsas  6 , Rodrigo Bagur  7 , Catherine M Otto  8 , Per O Vandvik  9
Affiliations

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

Farid Foroutan et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Data sources: Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.

Study selection: Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.

Methods: Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.

Results: In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).

Conclusion: Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organization that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influence the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Study flow diagram
None
Fig 2 Survival after surgical replacement of an aortic valve with a bioprosthetic valve, stratified by age. Individual patient data estimated using algorithm developed by Guyot et al 2012
None
Fig 3 Freedom from structural valve deterioration after surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic valve. Individual patient data estimated using algorithm developed by Guyot et al 2012
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. ACC/AHA Task Force Members. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014;129:2440-92. 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000029 pmid:24589852. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arsalan M, Walther T. Durability of prostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Nat Rev Cardiol 2016;13:360-7. 10.1038/nrcardio.2016.43 pmid:27053461. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Huygens SA, Mokhles MM, Hanif M, et al. Contemporary outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses and allografts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2016;ezw101 10.1093/ejcts/ezw101 pmid:27026750. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siemieniuk RA, Agoritsas T, Manja V, et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low and intermediate risk: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ;2016:354:i5130. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lytvyn L, Guyatt GH, Manja V, et al. Patient values and preferences on transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement therapy for aortic stenosis: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2016;6:e014327. - PMC - PubMed