Cargando…

Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort

BACKGROUND: The choice of prosthesis for mitral valve replacement still remains controversial. This study assessed mortality, bleeding events and reoperation in patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery with biological or mechanical substitutes. METHODS: A total of 352 patients who und...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ribeiro, Angela Henrique Silva, Wender, Orlando Carlos Belmonte, de Almeida, Adriana Silveira, Soares, Luciana Eltz, Picon, Paulo Dornelles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25326757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-14-146
_version_ 1782349584060645376
author Ribeiro, Angela Henrique Silva
Wender, Orlando Carlos Belmonte
de Almeida, Adriana Silveira
Soares, Luciana Eltz
Picon, Paulo Dornelles
author_facet Ribeiro, Angela Henrique Silva
Wender, Orlando Carlos Belmonte
de Almeida, Adriana Silveira
Soares, Luciana Eltz
Picon, Paulo Dornelles
author_sort Ribeiro, Angela Henrique Silva
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The choice of prosthesis for mitral valve replacement still remains controversial. This study assessed mortality, bleeding events and reoperation in patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery with biological or mechanical substitutes. METHODS: A total of 352 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery between 1990 and 2008 with 5 to 23 years of follow-up were retrospectively evaluated in a cohort study. RESULTS: The 5, 10, 15 and 20 year survival rates after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 87.7%, 74.2%, 69.3% and 69.3%, respectively, while after surgery with a biological substitute, they were 87.6%, 71.0%, 64.2% and 56.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.38). In the multivariate analysis, the factors associated with death were age, bleeding events and renal failure. The probabilities of remaining free of reoperation at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 94.4%, 92.7%, 92.7% and 92.7%; after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 95.9%, 86.4%, 81.2% and 76.5%, respectively (p = 0.073). There was a significantly higher incidence of reoperation for the bioprosthetic valve replacement group (p = 0.008). The probabilities of remaining free of bleeding events at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 95.0%, 91.0%, 89.6% and 89.6%, respectively, while after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 96.9%, 94.0%, 94.0% and 94.0%, (p = 0.267). CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that: 1) mortality during follow-up was statistically similar for both groups; 2) there was a greater tendency to reoperation in the bioprosthesis group; 3) the probability of remaining free from reoperation remained unchanged after 10 years’ follow-up for patients with mechanical substitute valves; 4) the probability of remaining fee from bleeding events remained unchanged after 10 years’ follow-up for patients given bioprostheses; 5) the baseline characteristics of patients were the greatest determinants of later mortality after surgery; 6) the type of prosthesis was not an independent predictive factor of any of the outcomes tested in the multivariate analysis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4271332
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42713322014-12-20 Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort Ribeiro, Angela Henrique Silva Wender, Orlando Carlos Belmonte de Almeida, Adriana Silveira Soares, Luciana Eltz Picon, Paulo Dornelles BMC Cardiovasc Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: The choice of prosthesis for mitral valve replacement still remains controversial. This study assessed mortality, bleeding events and reoperation in patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery with biological or mechanical substitutes. METHODS: A total of 352 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery between 1990 and 2008 with 5 to 23 years of follow-up were retrospectively evaluated in a cohort study. RESULTS: The 5, 10, 15 and 20 year survival rates after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 87.7%, 74.2%, 69.3% and 69.3%, respectively, while after surgery with a biological substitute, they were 87.6%, 71.0%, 64.2% and 56.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.38). In the multivariate analysis, the factors associated with death were age, bleeding events and renal failure. The probabilities of remaining free of reoperation at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 94.4%, 92.7%, 92.7% and 92.7%; after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 95.9%, 86.4%, 81.2% and 76.5%, respectively (p = 0.073). There was a significantly higher incidence of reoperation for the bioprosthetic valve replacement group (p = 0.008). The probabilities of remaining free of bleeding events at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 95.0%, 91.0%, 89.6% and 89.6%, respectively, while after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 96.9%, 94.0%, 94.0% and 94.0%, (p = 0.267). CONCLUSIONS: The authors concluded that: 1) mortality during follow-up was statistically similar for both groups; 2) there was a greater tendency to reoperation in the bioprosthesis group; 3) the probability of remaining free from reoperation remained unchanged after 10 years’ follow-up for patients with mechanical substitute valves; 4) the probability of remaining fee from bleeding events remained unchanged after 10 years’ follow-up for patients given bioprostheses; 5) the baseline characteristics of patients were the greatest determinants of later mortality after surgery; 6) the type of prosthesis was not an independent predictive factor of any of the outcomes tested in the multivariate analysis. BioMed Central 2014-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4271332/ /pubmed/25326757 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-14-146 Text en © Ribeiro et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ribeiro, Angela Henrique Silva
Wender, Orlando Carlos Belmonte
de Almeida, Adriana Silveira
Soares, Luciana Eltz
Picon, Paulo Dornelles
Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort
title Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort
title_full Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort
title_fullStr Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort
title_short Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort
title_sort comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271332/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25326757
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2261-14-146
work_keys_str_mv AT ribeiroangelahenriquesilva comparisonofclinicaloutcomesinpatientsundergoingmitralvalvereplacementwithmechanicalorbiologicalsubstitutesa20yearscohort
AT wenderorlandocarlosbelmonte comparisonofclinicaloutcomesinpatientsundergoingmitralvalvereplacementwithmechanicalorbiologicalsubstitutesa20yearscohort
AT dealmeidaadrianasilveira comparisonofclinicaloutcomesinpatientsundergoingmitralvalvereplacementwithmechanicalorbiologicalsubstitutesa20yearscohort
AT soareslucianaeltz comparisonofclinicaloutcomesinpatientsundergoingmitralvalvereplacementwithmechanicalorbiologicalsubstitutesa20yearscohort
AT piconpaulodornelles comparisonofclinicaloutcomesinpatientsundergoingmitralvalvereplacementwithmechanicalorbiologicalsubstitutesa20yearscohort