Bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves for mitral valve replacement in patients < 70 years: an updated pairwise meta-analysis
- PMID: 37414971
- DOI: 10.1007/s11748-023-01956-1
Bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves for mitral valve replacement in patients < 70 years: an updated pairwise meta-analysis
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.
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery.
References
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
-
- 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
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
