Mechanical versus biological heart valves: a ten-year comparison in a single centre

Kenneth MacArthur; W H Bain; Michael J. Turner; K DAVIDSON; G BERG; Samer A.M. Nashef; R. Mark Rodger

doi:10.1016/1010-7940(88)90062-0

January 1, 1988European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Mechanical versus biological heart valves: a ten-year comparison in a single centre

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Why the study?

Does mechanical heart valve replacement compared to biological heart valve replacement improve clinical outcomes in patients requiring valve replacement?

Key Points

The aim is to compare the long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological heart valves implanted over a decade.
Retrospective analysis of 1606 mechanical and 1346 biological valve implants from 1977 to 1986.
Assessment of mortality rates, systemic embolism incidents, and valve complications post-implantation.
Comparison of preoperative characteristics, including age, cardiac rhythm, and anticoagulation status.
No significant difference was found in hospital mortality (BS 7.2%, CE 6.3%) or late mortality (BS 2.5%/year, CE 3.2%/year).
Incidence rates of systemic embolism were similar overall (BS 1.3%/year, CE 1.4%/year) but lower for BS in the aortic position (BS 0.2%/year vs CE 1.2%/year, P<0.02).
Incidence of valve failure (BS 0.5%/year, CE 0.9%/year) and peri-prosthetic leak (BS 1.2%/year, CE 1.3%/year) showed no significant differences.

Structured PICO

Does mechanical heart valve replacement compared to biological heart valve replacement improve clinical outcomes in patients requiring valve replacement?

P

Population

2,456 patients undergoing heart valve replacement at a single center between January 1977 and December 1986 (1,300 received mechanical valves, 1,156 received biological valves).

I

Intervention

Mechanical heart valve (Bjørk-Shiley tilting disc prostheses, 1,606 valves implanted). All patients were anticoagulated.

C

Comparator

Biological heart valve (Carpentier Edwards porcine prostheses, 1,346 valves implanted). 49% of mitral and 7% of aortic patients were anticoagulated.

O

Outcome

Hospital mortality, late mortality, systemic embolism, prosthetic valve endocarditis, valve failure, and peri-prosthetic leak.hard clinical

Ask about this paper

Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.

Implication

Mechanical and biological heart valves showed comparable rates of mortality and major complications over a 10-year period, though mechanical valves had lower systemic embolism rates in the aortic position.

Abstract

No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

MacArthur et al. (1988) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a7292d226770c2b8de17f92 https://doi.org/10.1016/1010-7940(88)90062-0

View at Publisher

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Mechanical versus biological heart valves: a ten-year comparison in a single centre

Key Points

Structured PICO

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Mechanical versus biological heart valves: a ten-year comparison in a single centre

Key Points

Structured PICO

Ask about this paper

Implication

Abstract

Discussion

Cite This Study

Keep reading

Keep reading