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
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 Mar;112(3):292-301.
doi: 10.5935/abc.20180272. Epub 2019 Jan 7.

Comparison of Biological and Mechanical Prostheses for Heart Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

[Article in English, Portuguese]
Alberto Takeshi Kiyose  1   2 , Erica Aranha Suzumura  2 , Lígia Laranjeira  2 , Anna Maria Buehler  2 , José Amalth Espírito Santo  2 , Otavio Berwanger  2 , Antonio Carlos de Camargo Carvalho  1 , Angelo Amato de Paola  1 , Valdir Ambrósio Moises  1 , Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Biological and Mechanical Prostheses for Heart Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

[Article in English, Portuguese]
Alberto Takeshi Kiyose et al. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2019 Mar.

Abstract

Background: The choice of a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) for patients with valvular heart disease undergoing replacement is still not a consensus.

Objective: We aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of MP or BP placement in those patients.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biological prostheses and mechanical prostheses in patients with valvular heart diseases and assessed the outcomes. RCTs were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science (from inception to November 2014) databases. Meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance with random effects models. The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A P-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: A total of four RCTs were included in the meta-analyses (1,528 patients) with follow up ranging from 2 to 20 years. Three used old generation mechanical and biological prostheses, and one used contemporary prostheses. No significant difference in mortality was found between BP and MP patients (risk ratio (RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.15). The risk of bleeding was significantly lower in BP patients than MP patients (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.78); however, reoperations were significantly more frequent in BP patients (RR = 3.60; 95% CI 2.44-5.32). There were no statistically significant differences between BP and MP patients with respect to systemic arterial embolisms and infective endocarditis (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.66-1.31, RR = 1.21; CI95% 0.78-1.88, respectively). Results in the trials with modern and old prostheses were similar.

Conclusions: The mortality rate and the risk of thromboembolic events and endocarditis were similar between BP and MP patients. The risk of bleeding was approximately one third lower for BP patients than for MP patients, while the risk of reoperations was more than three times higher for BP patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Potential Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study search and selection processes.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Forest plot showing the effects of biological versus mechanical prostheses on mortality.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Forest plots showing the effects of biological versus mechanical prostheses on a need for reoperation (A) and risk of bleeding (B).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Forest plots showing the effects of biological versus mechanical prostheses on the risk of systemic arterial embolism (A) and the risk of endocarditis (B).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves: selection of the optimal prosthesis and long-term management. Circulation. 2009;19(7):1034–1048. - PubMed
    1. Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC, Henry EL, Fedderly BJ, Freed MD, et al. Guidelines 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 (Committee on Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease) Circulation. 1998;98(18):1949–1984. - PubMed
    1. Vahanian A, Baumgartner H, Bax J, Butchart E, Dion R, Filippatos G, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The task force on the management of valvular heart disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(2):230–268. - PubMed
    1. Dagenais F, Cartier P, Voisine P, Desaulniers D, Perron J, Baillot R, et al. Which biologic valve should we select for the 45- to 65-year-old age group requiring aortic valve replacement? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005;129(5):1041–1049. - PubMed
    1. Hoffmann G, Lutter G, Cremer J. Durability of bioprosthetic cardiac valves. Deutsches Arzteblatt Int. 2008;105(8):143–148. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types