Why the study?
To compare 22-year composites of valve-related reoperation, morbidity, and mortality following mitral mechanical and bioprostheses in young rheumatics aged <45 years.
Does bioprosthetic MVR reduce valve-related reoperation, morbidity, and mortality compared to mechanical MVR in young rheumatic patients aged <45 years?
Does bioprosthetic MVR reduce valve-related reoperation, morbidity, and mortality compared to mechanical MVR in young rheumatic patients aged <45 years?
Bioprostheses offer comparable survival and reoperation rates to mechanical prostheses in young rheumatic patients under 45 years, making them an acceptable alternative for those unwilling to undergo lifelong anticoagulation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports bioprosthetic MVR in select young rheumatic patients; leaves open need for RCTs to guide practice.
Background and Aim: We compared 22-year composites of valve-related reoperation, morbidity, and mortality following mitral mechanical and bioprostheses in young rheumatics aged <45years. Methods: Retrospective comparative analysis of valve-related reoperations and survival data were performed from 466 consecutive propensity matched patients undergoing either bioprosthetic MVR (Group I, n=233) or mechanical MVR (Group II, n=233) between 1998 and 2019. Results: The median age was 33 (IQR: 27-40) and 34 (IQR: 28-39) years for Group I and II respectively. The mean follow-up was 3278.9 patient-years in the biological arm and 3384.4 patient-years in mechanical arm. Bioprosthetic arm exhibited lesser cumulative mortality (4.5% vs 9.9%, SMD= -0.04, p=0.65). Hazard regression for mortality included (HR, 95% CI) preoperative congestive heart failure (CHF) 11.44 (8.44, 624.9), p<0.0001; renal failure 19.51 (8.04, 47.35), p<0.0001; previous operation 6.84 (2.48, 18.84), p<0.0001; atrial fibrillation (AF) 7.64 (1.02, 57.13), p=0.006; LA clot 61.94 (8.28, 463.08), p<0.0001; giant LA >65 mm 7.87 (2.62, 23.56), p<0.0001; poor left ventricular (LV) function 0.94 (0.92, 0.97), p<0.0001; and prolonged aortic clamp time 1.07 (1.04, 1.11), p<0.0001). Propensity matching did not exhibit any difference in reoperations between bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses (18.8% vs 13.3%, SMD= -0.152, p=0.1). At a median follow-up of 136 (IQR: 76-197) months, actuarial survival was 90.32%±0.02% (p=0.09) and there was no difference between the groups (p=0.09). Conclusions: Bioprostheses are an acceptable alternative to mechanical prostheses in young rheumatics aged <45 years unwilling for mechanical valve, redo surgeries, life-long anticoagulation, and those desirous of pregnancy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ujjwal K. Chowdhury (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: