Structural valve deterioration in the Mitroflow biological heart valve prosthesis
Key result
Size 19 Mitroflow valves are linked to ~526% higher severe SVD risk versus larger sizes.
- HR 6.26
- 95% CI 1.63-24.06
- P=0.008
- n=1,552
Population
1,552 patients in Denmark who received a Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis since January 2000.
Design
Cross-sectional
Follow-up
up to 9 years
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Small Mitroflow Size 19 may warrant closer echocardiographic surveillance; leaves open durability comparisons across bioprostheses.
Study Design
Type
Cross-Sectional (n=1,552)
Multicenter
Yes
Structured PICO
P
Population
1,552 patients in Denmark who received a Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis since 2000, evaluated for structural valve degeneration.
E
Exposure
Mitroflow biological heart valve prosthesis
O
Outcome
Incidence of structural valve degeneration (SVD)safety
Main Result
Hazard Ratio: 6.26 (95% CI 1.63–24.06)
Absolute Event Rate: 12.5% vs 3.1%
p-value: p=0.008
The Mitroflow bioprosthesis exhibits a high rate of structural valve degeneration, particularly in smaller sizes after 5 years, necessitating careful long-term echocardiographic follow-up.
Cite This Study
Issa et al. (2017) conducted a cross-sectional in Aortic valve replacement (n=1,552). Small Mitroflow bioprosthesis (Size 19) vs. Larger prosthesis sizes (Size 23) was evaluated on Severe structural valve degeneration (SVD) (HR 6.26, 95% CI 1.63-24.06, p=0.008). Small Mitroflow bioprosthesis size (Size 19) was associated with a higher risk of severe structural valve degeneration compared to larger sizes (HR 6.26; 95% CI 1.63-24.06; P=0.008).