Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders

Paulo Dornelles Picon²  Luciana Eltz Soares⁴  Adriana Silveira de Almeida³  Orlando Carlos Belmonte Wender⁵  Angela Henrique Silva Ribeiro¹ 

[1] Clinical Medicine of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Av. Francisco Trein, 596, sala 201, Porto Alegre, RS 91350-200, Brazil;Cardiology by Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Internal Medicine, Medical School at UFRGS, Clinical Pharmacology at University of Passo Fundo, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil;Cardiology and Cardiovascular Sciences of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Cardiovascular Surgery, Cardiovascular Surgery of Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil;Faculty of Medicine of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil;Surgery Department of the Faculty of Medicine, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Cardiovascular Surgery Service for the Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

关键词: Mortality;    Predictors;    Mechanical prostheses;    Bioprostheses;    Mitral prosthesis;    Mitral valve surgery;   

Others  :  1088428
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2261-14-146

 received in 2014-06-24, accepted in 2014-09-29,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The choice of prosthesis for mitral valve replacement still remains controversial. This study assessed mortality, bleeding events and reoperation in patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery with biological or mechanical substitutes.

Methods

A total of 352 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery between 1990 and 2008 with 5 to 23 years of follow-up were retrospectively evaluated in a cohort study.

Results

The 5, 10, 15 and 20 year survival rates after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 87.7%, 74.2%, 69.3% and 69.3%, respectively, while after surgery with a biological substitute, they were 87.6%, 71.0%, 64.2% and 56.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.38). In the multivariate analysis, the factors associated with death were age, bleeding events and renal failure. The probabilities of remaining free of reoperation at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 94.4%, 92.7%, 92.7% and 92.7%; after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 95.9%, 86.4%, 81.2% and 76.5%, respectively (p = 0.073). There was a significantly higher incidence of reoperation for the bioprosthetic valve replacement group (p = 0.008). The probabilities of remaining free of bleeding events at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 95.0%, 91.0%, 89.6% and 89.6%, respectively, while after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 96.9%, 94.0%, 94.0% and 94.0%, (p = 0.267).

Conclusions

The authors concluded that: 1) mortality during follow-up was statistically similar for both groups; 2) there was a greater tendency to reoperation in the bioprosthesis group; 3) the probability of remaining free from reoperation remained unchanged after 10 years’ follow-up for patients with mechanical substitute valves; 4) the probability of remaining fee from bleeding events remained unchanged after 10 years’ follow-up for patients given bioprostheses; 5) the baseline characteristics of patients were the greatest determinants of later mortality after surgery; 6) the type of prosthesis was not an independent predictive factor of any of the outcomes tested in the multivariate analysis.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Ribeiro et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, de Leon AC Jr, Faxon DP, Freed MD, Gaasch WH, Lytle BW, Nishimura RA, O`Gara PT, O`Rourke RA, Otto CM, Shah PM, Shanewise JS, Smith SC Jr, Jacobs AK, Adams CD, Anderson JL, Antman EM, Fuster V, Halperin JL, Hiratzka LF, Hunt SA, Lytle BW, Nishimura R, Page RL, Riegel B, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American college of cardiology/American heart association task force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll of Cardiol 2006, 2006(48):e1-e148.
• [2]Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. 2013. http://www.ibge.gov.br/home/ webcite. Assessed at: June 9th
• [3]Engoren M, Arslanian-Engoren C, Steckel D, Neihardt J, Fenn-Buderer N: Cost, outcome, and functional status in octogenarians and septuagenarians after cardiac surgery. Chest 2002, 122:1309-1315.
• [4]Ministério da Saúde. Departamento de Informática do SUS – DATASUS. Informações de Saúde. Assistência à Saúde. Internações hospitalares: Procedimentos hospitalares por gestor - a partir de 2008. 2013. http://tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?sih/cnv/qgbr.def webcite. Assessed at: sep 26 th
• [5]Gomes WJ: Quality of valve prostheses: are we treating our patients well in the Brazilian National Health System? Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc 2011, 26:VIII.
• [6]Sidhu P, O'Kane H, Ali N, Gladstone DJ, Sarsam MA, Campalani G, MacGowan SW: Mechanical or bioprosthetic valves in the elderly: a 20-year comparison. Ann Thorac Surg 2001, 71:S257-S260.
• [7]Kassai B, Gueyffier F, Cucherat M, Boissel JP: Comparison of bioprosthesis and mechanical valves, a meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. Cardiovasc Surg 2000, 8:477-483.
• [8]Hammermeister KE, Henderson WG, Burchfiel CM, Sethi GK, Souchek J, Oprian C, Cantor AB, Folland E, Khuri S, Rahimtoola S: Comparison of outcome after valve replacement with a bioprosthesis versus a mechanical prosthesis: initial 5 year results of a randomized trial. J Am Coll of Cardiol 1987, 10:719-732.
• [9]Rahimtoola SH: Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll of Cardiol 2003, 41:893-904.
• [10]El Oakley R, Kleine P, Bach DS: Choice of prosthetic heart valve in today's practice. Circulation 2008, 117:253-256.
• [11]Hoffmann G, Lutter G, Cremer J: Durability of bioprosthetic cardiac valves. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2008, 105:143-148.
• [12]Peterseim DS, Cen YY, Cheruvu S, Landolfo K, Bashore TM, Lowe JE, Wolfe WG, Glower DD: Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999, 117:890-897.
• [13]Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Oprian C, Kim T, Rahimtoola S: A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. Veterans affairs cooperative study on valvular heart disease. N Engl J Med 1993, 328:1289-1296.
• [14]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 of Cardiol 2000, 36:1152-1158.
• [15]Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Initiative S: The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:344-349.
• [16]Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI, Kouchoukos NT, Blackstone EH, Grunkemeier GL, Takkenberg JJ, David TE, Butchart EG, Adams DH, Shahian DM, Hagl S, Mayer JE, Lytle BW: Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. Ann Thorac Surg 2008, 85:1490-1495.
• [17]Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, Lee RJ, Cunningham J, Prescott RJ, Miller HC: Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003, 89:715-721.
• [18]Nowicki ER, Birkmeyer NJ, Weintraub RW, Leavitt BJ, Sanders JH, Dacey LJ, Clough RA, Quinn RD, Charlesworth DC, Sisto DA, Uhlig PN, Olmstead EM, O`Connor GT for the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group and the Center for Evaluative Clinical Sciences: Multivariable prediction of in-hospital mortality associated with aortic and mitral valve surgery in Northern New England. Ann Thorac Surg 2004, 77:1966-1977.
• [19]Ruel M, Chan V, Bedard P, Kulik A, Ressler L, Lam BK, Rubens FD, Goldstein W, Hendry PJ, Masters RG, Mesana TG: Very long-term survival implications of heart valve replacement with tissue versus mechanical prostheses in adults <60 years of age. Circulation 2007, 116:I294-I300.
• [20]Khan SS, Trento A, DeRobertis M, Kass RM, Sandhu M, Czer LS, Blanche C, Raissi S, Fontana GP, Cheng W, Chaux A, Matloff JM: Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001, 122:257-269.
• [21]Jamieson WR, Von Lipinski O, Miyagishima RT, Burr LH, Janusz MT, Ling H, Fradet GJ, Chan F, Germann E: Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after mitral valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005, 129:1301-1308.
• [22]Kim JB, Kim HJ, Moon DH, Jung SH, Choo SJ, Chung CH, Song H, Lee JW: Long-term outcomes after surgery for rheumatic mitral valve disease: valve repair versus mechanical valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2010, 37:1039-1046.
• [23]Kulik A, Bedard P, Lam BK, Rubens FD, Hendry PJ, Masters RG, Mesana TG, Ruel M: Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006, 30:485-491.
• [24]Yau TM, El-Ghoneimi YA, Armstrong S, Ivanov J, David TE: Mitral valve repair and replacement for rheumatic disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000, 119:53-60.
• [25]Jamieson WR, Edwards FH, Schwartz M, Bero JW, Clark RE, Grover FL: Risk stratification for cardiac valve replacement. National cardiac surgery database. database committee of the society of thoracic surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg 1999, 67:943-951.
• [26]Ruel M, Kulik A, Rubens FD, Bedard P, Masters RG, Pipe AL, Mesana TG: Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004, 25:364-370.
• [27]Umezu K, Saito S, Yamazaki K, Kawai A, Kurosawa H: Cardiac valvular surgery in dialysis patients: comparison of surgical outcome for mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009, 57:197-202.