Mitral valve prosthesis choice in patients <70 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 219 patients
- PMID: 32092191
- DOI: 10.1111/jocs.14478
Mitral valve prosthesis choice in patients <70 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 219 patients
Abstract
Background: The optimal mitral prosthesis in young patients is unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare outcomes between bileaflet mechanical mitral valve replacement (mMVR) and bioprosthesis mitral valve replacement (bioMVR) for MVR patients aged less than 70 years.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2018 for studies comparing surgical outcomes of mMVR vs bioMVR.
Results: There were 14 observational studies with 20 219 patients (n = 14 658 mMVR and n = 5561 bioMVR). Patients receiving an mMVR were younger with fewer comorbidities including renal failure, dialysis, and less-infective endocarditis (P < .001). The estimated 10-year mortality ranged from 19% to 49% for mMVR and 22% to 58% for bioMVR among studies. Comparing matched or adjusted data, mMVR was associated with lower operative (risk ratio [RR]: 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.94; P = .03) and long-term (HR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.92; P = .002) mortality at a median follow-up of 8 years (IQR: 6-10 years). Estimated 10-year risk for mitral valve reoperation ranged from 0% to 8% for mMVR and 8% to 22% for bioMVR among matched/adjusted studies. mMVR was associated with lower matched/adjusted risk of reoperation (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.65; P = .001) but with greater risk of bleeding (HR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.19, 2.13; P = .002) and a trend to greater risk of stroke and embolism (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 0.92, 3.15; P = .09).
Conclusion: Mechanical MVR in patients aged less than 70 years is associated with a lower risk of operative mortality as well as a 20% lower risk of long-term death and 65% lower risk of mitral valve reoperation but 60% greater risk of bleeding compared with bioMVR in matched or adjusted data.
Keywords: bioprosthetic; mechanical; meta-analysis; mitral valve replacement.
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Badhwar V, Rankin JS, He X, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Mitral Repair/Replacement Composite Score: a report of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality Measurement Task Force. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(6):2265-2271.
-
- Chikwe J, Chiang YP, Egorova NN, Itagaki S, Adams DH. Survival and outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA. 2015;313(14):1435-1442.
-
- Cen YY, Glower DD, Landolfo K, et al. Comparison of survival after mitral valve replacement with biologic and mechanical valves in 1139 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;122(3):569-577.
-
- Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1847-1857.
-
- Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(4):1152-1158.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
