Mechanical prostheses provided a long-term mortality benefit compared to biologic prostheses up to 70 years for mitral and 55 years for aortic valve replacement.
Does a biologic prosthesis improve long-term mortality compared to a mechanical prosthesis in patients undergoing primary aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement?
25,445 patients (9,942 undergoing primary aortic-valve replacement and 15,503 undergoing primary mitral-valve replacement) at 142 nonfederal hospitals in California between 1996 and 2013. Exclusions included out-of-state residency, previous cardiac surgery, multiple valve replacement, aortic-valve repair, mitral-valve repair, and thoracic aortic surgery.
Biologic prosthesis for primary aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement
Mechanical prosthesis for primary aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement
Long-term mortalityhard clinical
Mechanical prostheses are associated with a long-term mortality benefit compared to biologic prostheses up to age 70 for mitral-valve replacement and up to age 55 for aortic-valve replacement.
The long-term mortality benefit that was associated with a mechanical prosthesis, as compared with a biologic prosthesis, persisted until 70 years of age among patients undergoing mitral-valve replacement and until 55 years of age among those undergoing aortic-valve replacement. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Andrew B. Goldstone
Peter Chiu
Michael Baiocchi
New England Journal of Medicine
Stanford University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Goldstone et al. (Wed,) reported a other. Mechanical prostheses provided a long-term mortality benefit compared to biologic prostheses up to 70 years for mitral and 55 years for aortic valve replacement.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6966900d81cb7b867be4be93 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1613792