Key result
Biological mitral valve replacement associates with similar 10-year survival vs mechanical valves but less bleeding.
Why the study?
This study compared long-term outcomes of biological and mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients requiring mitral valve replacement where repair was not feasible.
Does biological mitral valve replacement improve long-term survival or reduce complications compared to mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients requiring mitral valve replacement?
Cohort (n=324)
No
Does biological mitral valve replacement improve long-term survival or reduce complications compared to mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients requiring mitral valve replacement?
Hazard Ratio: 0.833 (95% CI 0.43–1.615)
Absolute Event Rate: 62.4% vs 77.1%
p-value: p=0.769
In patients undergoing mitral valve replacement, biological and mechanical valves showed no significant difference in 10-year survival, though mechanical valves were associated with higher bleeding and re-thoracotomy rates.
May favor biological mitral valves to reduce bleeding; leaves open survival equivalence pending randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: This study compared long-term outcomes of biological and mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients requiring replacement of the mitral valve where repair was not feasible. METHODS: A single-centre registry of patients receiving MVR between 2005 and 2015 was established. Thirty-day mortality and long-term outcomes were analysed and compared. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty four patients underwent MVR (265 biological; 59 mechanical valves). Patients receiving biological valves were older (p < 0.001), had a higher log EuroSCORE (p < 0.001) and received less minimally invasive surgery (p < 0.001). Immediate procedural mortality was 1.9%, which only occurred in the biological valve group. At 30 days, 9.0% of patients had died, 4.0% experienced stroke, 8.0% received a pacemaker and 10.5% suffered an acute renal failure. The rate of re-thoracotomy (14.2%) was lower in the biological (12.5%) than in the mechanical valve group (22.0%; adjOR 0.45 [0.20-1.00]; p = 0.050). Frequent long-term complications were stroke (9.2%) and bleeding (4.8%), with bleeding complications being higher in the mechanical valve group (p = 0.009). During the follow-up period biological valves showed a numerically higher survival rate during the first years, which shifted after 3 years in favour of mechanical valves. At 10 years, survival rates were 62.4% vs. 77.1% in the biological and mechanical valve groups (p = 0.769). Hazard ratio after adjustment was 0.833 (95% CI 0.430-1.615). CONCLUSION: These data confirm that mechanical valve implantation is associated with an increased risk of bleeding. While there was a potential survival benefit during the first years after surgery for patients receiving a biological valves the difference became insignificant after a follow-up of 10 years.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Çetinkaya et al. (2019) conducted a cohort in Mitral valve disease requiring replacement (n=324). Biological mitral valve replacement vs. Mechanical mitral valve replacement was evaluated on 10-year survival (HR 0.833, 95% CI 0.430-1.615, p=0.769). Biological mitral valve replacement was associated with similar 10-year survival compared to mechanical valves (62.4% vs 77.1%; HR 0.833, 95% CI 0.430-1.615), but mechanical valves increased bleeding.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: