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
. 2024 Feb;72(2):95-103.
doi: 10.1007/s11748-023-01956-1. Epub 2023 Jul 6.

Bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves for mitral valve replacement in patients < 70 years: an updated pairwise meta-analysis

Adham Ahmed  1 , Ahmed K Awad  2 , Kathryn S Varghese  3 , Viren S Sehgal  3 , Kenzy Hisham  2 , Jerrin George  4 , Roshan Pandey  3 , Eamon Vega  3 , Mia Polizzi  3 , Dave M Mathew  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves for mitral valve replacement in patients < 70 years: an updated pairwise meta-analysis

Adham Ahmed et al. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Feb.

Abstract

Background: The ideal conduit for mitral valve replacement (MVR) remains elusive, particularly among younger patients due to increased life expectancy. We perform a pairwise meta-analysis comparing the use of bioprosthetic valves (BPV) and mechanical mitral valves (MMV) in patients < 70 years old undergoing MVR.

Methods: We comprehensively searched medical databases to identify studies comparing the use of BPV and MMV in patients < 70 years old undergoing MVR. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method in R version 4.0.2. Outcomes were pooled using the random effect model as risk ratios (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

Results: 16,879 patients from 15 studies were pooled. Compared to MMV, BPV was associated with significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality (RR 1.53, p = 0.0006) but no difference in 30-day stroke (RR 0.70, p = 0.43). At a weighted mean follow-up duration of 14.1 years, BPV was associated with higher rates of long-term mortality (RR 1.28, p = 0.0054). No difference was seen between the two groups for risk of long-term stroke (RR 0.92, p = 0.67), reoperation(RR 1.72, p = 0.12), or major-bleeding (RR 0.57, p = 0.10) at a weighted mean follow-up duration of 11.7, 11.3, and 11.9 years, respectively.

Conclusion: The use of MMV in patients < 70 undergoing MVR is associated with lower rates of 30-day/long-term mortality compared to BPV. No significant differences were observed for risk of 30-day/long-term stroke, long-term reoperation, and long-term major bleeding. These findings support the use of MMV in younger patients, although prospective, randomized trials are still needed.

Keywords: Bioprosthetic; Mechanical; Mitral valve.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

  • Tissue versus mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50-70: a propensity-matched analysis.
    Fialka NM, Watkins AR, Alam A, El-Andari R, Kang JJH, Hong Y, Bozso SJ, Moon MC, Nagendran J. Fialka NM, et al. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024 Aug 2;66(2):ezae283. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezae283. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2024. PMID: 39167084 Free PMC article.
  • 2025 Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics: A Report of US and Global Data From the American Heart Association.
    Martin SS, Aday AW, Allen NB, Almarzooq ZI, Anderson CAM, Arora P, Avery CL, Baker-Smith CM, Bansal N, Beaton AZ, Commodore-Mensah Y, Currie ME, Elkind MSV, Fan W, Generoso G, Gibbs BB, Heard DG, Hiremath S, Johansen MC, Kazi DS, Ko D, Leppert MH, Magnani JW, Michos ED, Mussolino ME, Parikh NI, Perman SM, Rezk-Hanna M, Roth GA, Shah NS, Springer MV, St-Onge MP, Thacker EL, Urbut SM, Van Spall HGC, Voeks JH, Whelton SP, Wong ND, Wong SS, Yaffe K, Palaniappan LP; American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Committee. Martin SS, et al. Circulation. 2025 Feb 25;151(8):e41-e660. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001303. Epub 2025 Jan 27. Circulation. 2025. PMID: 39866113 Review.

References

    1. Aluru JS, Barsouk A, Saginala K, Rawla P, Barsouk A. Valvular heart disease epidemiology. Med Sci (Basel). 2022;10(2):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/medsci10020032 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Yu J, Qiao E, Wang W. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for mitral valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Cardiol. 2022;45(7):701–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/clc.23854 . - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO, et al. 2020 ACC/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation. 2021;143(5):e72–227. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000923 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Vahanian A, Beyersdorf F, Praz F, et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease developed by the task force for the management of valvular heart disease of the European society of cardiology (ESC) and the European association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2022;43(7):561–632. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Li J, Wang S, Sun H, et al. Clinical and surgical evaluations of reoperation after mechanical mitral valve replacement due to different etiologies. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.778750 . - DOI - PubMed - PMC

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources