Comparison of Biological and Mechanical Prostheses for Heart Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND: The choice of a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) for patients with valvular heart disease undergoing replacement is still not a consensus. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of MP or BP placement in those patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic revie...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kiyose, Alberto Takeshi, Suzumura, Erica Aranha, Laranjeira, Lígia, Buehler, Anna Maria, Santo, José Amalth Espírito, Berwanger, Otavio, Carvalho, Antonio Carlos de Camargo, de Paola, Angelo Amato, Moises, Valdir Ambrósio, Cavalcanti, Alexandre Biasi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia - SBC 2019
Materias:
Original Article
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6424027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30916201
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/abc.20180272
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The choice of a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) for patients with valvular heart disease undergoing replacement is still not a consensus. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of MP or BP placement in those patients. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biological prostheses and mechanical prostheses in patients with valvular heart diseases and assessed the outcomes. RCTs were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science (from inception to November 2014) databases. Meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance with random effects models. The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A P-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of four RCTs were included in the meta-analyses (1,528 patients) with follow up ranging from 2 to 20 years. Three used old generation mechanical and biological prostheses, and one used contemporary prostheses. No significant difference in mortality was found between BP and MP patients (risk ratio (RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.15). The risk of bleeding was significantly lower in BP patients than MP patients (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.78); however, reoperations were significantly more frequent in BP patients (RR = 3.60; 95% CI 2.44-5.32). There were no statistically significant differences between BP and MP patients with respect to systemic arterial embolisms and infective endocarditis (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.66-1.31, RR = 1.21; CI95% 0.78-1.88, respectively). Results in the trials with modern and old prostheses were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate and the risk of thromboembolic events and endocarditis were similar between BP and MP patients. The risk of bleeding was approximately one third lower for BP patients than for MP patients, while the risk of reoperations was more than three times higher for BP patients.

Ejemplares similares