Literature DB >> 15367517

Comparison of outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation.

J P A Puvimanasinghe1, J J M Takkenberg, M B Edwards, M J C Eijkemans, E W Steyerberg, L A Van Herwerden, K M Taylor, G L Grunkemeier, J D F Habbema, A J J C Bogers.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mechanical valves and bioprostheses are widely used for aortic valve replacement. Though previous randomised studies indicate that there is no important difference in outcome after implantation with either type of valve, knowledge of outcomes after aortic valve replacement is incomplete.
OBJECTIVE: To predict age and sex specific outcomes of patients after aortic valve replacement with bileaflet mechanical valves and stented porcine bioprostheses, and to provide evidence based support for the choice of prosthesis.
METHODS: Meta-analysis of published results of primary aortic valve replacement with bileaflet mechanical prostheses (nine reports, 4274 patients, and 25,726 patient-years) and stented porcine bioprostheses (13 reports, 9007 patients, and 54,151 patient-years) was used to estimate the annual risks of postoperative valve related events and their outcomes. These estimates were entered into a microsimulation model, which was employed to calculate age and sex specific outcomes after aortic valve replacement.
RESULTS: Life expectancy (LE) and event-free life expectancy (EFLE) for a 65 year old man after implantation with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis were 10.4 and 10.7 years and 7.7 and 8.4 years, respectively. The lifetime risk of at least one valve related event for a mechanical valve was 48%, and for a bioprosthesis, 44%. For LE and EFLE, the age crossover point between the two valve types was 59 and 60 years, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis based microsimulation provides insight into the long term outcome after aortic valve replacement and suggests that the currently recommended age threshold for implanting a bioprosthesis could be lowered further.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15367517      PMCID: PMC1768482          DOI: 10.1136/hrt.2003.013102

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart        ISSN: 1355-6037            Impact factor:   5.994


  43 in total

1.  Evolution of prosthetic heart valves.

Authors:  L H Edmunds
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.749

2.  Survival advantage of stentless aortic bioprostheses.

Authors:  S Westaby; M Horton; X Y Jin; T Katsumata; O Ahmed; S Saito; H H Li; G L Grunkemeier
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.330

3.  Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial.

Authors:  K Hammermeister; G K Sethi; W G Henderson; F L Grover; C Oprian; S H Rahimtoola
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 24.094

4.  Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a decision analysis.

Authors:  N J Birkmeyer; J D Birkmeyer; A N Tosteson; G L Grunkemeier; C A Marrin; G T O'Connor
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.330

5.  Long-term experience with the St. Jude Medical valve prosthesis.

Authors:  J L Zellner; J M Kratz; A J Crumbley; M R Stroud; S M Bradley; R M Sade; F A Crawford
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 4.330

6.  Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations.

Authors:  L H Edmunds; L H Cohn; R D Weisel
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  Prognosis after aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis: predictions based on meta-analysis and microsimulation.

Authors:  J P Puvimanasinghe; E W Steyerberg; J J Takkenberg; M J Eijkemans; L A van Herwerden; A J Bogers; J D Habbema
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2001-03-20       Impact factor: 29.690

8.  Observed and relative survival after aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  P Kvidal; R Bergström; L G Hörte; E Ståhle
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2000-03-01       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  Standard aortic St. Jude valve at 18 years: performance profile and determinants of outcome.

Authors:  O Lund; S L Nielsen; H Arildsen; L B Ilkjaer; H K Pilegaard
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis.

Authors:  T E David; J Ivanov; S Armstrong; C M Feindel; G Cohen
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 5.209

View more
  11 in total

1.  Introduction. Bioengineering the heart.

Authors:  Magdi Yacoub; Robert Nerem
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2007-08-29       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 2.  Dynamic microsimulation models for health outcomes: a review.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Alan M Zaslavsky; Eric J Feuer
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Initial Surgical Experience with Aortic Valve Repair: Clinical and Echocardiographic Results.

Authors:  Francisco Diniz Affonso da Costa; Daniele de Fátima Fornazari Colatusso; Ana Claudia Brenner Affonso da Costa; Eduardo Mendel Balbi Filho; Vinicius Nesi Cavicchioli; Sergio Augusto Veiga Lopes; Andrea Dumsch de Aragon Ferreira; Claudinei Collatusso
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2016-04

4.  The reinforced full-root technique for the Ross operation: surgical considerations and operative insights.

Authors:  Markus Liebrich; Efstratios I Charitos; Christoph Dingemann; Detlef Roser; Joerg Seeburger; Wolfgang Hemmer; Vladimir Voth
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2021-07

5.  Bayesian Calibration of Microsimulation Models.

Authors:  Carolyn M Rutter; Diana L Miglioretti; James E Savarino
Journal:  J Am Stat Assoc       Date:  2009-12-01       Impact factor: 5.033

6.  Comparison of models for predicting outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease focusing on microsimulation.

Authors:  Masoud Amiri; Roya Kelishadi
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2012-08

7.  Cardiac crossroads: deciding between mechanical or bioprosthetic heart valve replacement.

Authors:  Maggie N Tillquist; Thomas M Maddox
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2011-02-17       Impact factor: 2.711

8.  Influence of the characteristics of Japanese patients on the long-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement: results of a microsimulation.

Authors:  Tomonobu Abe; Hideki Oshima; Yuji Narita; Yoshimori Araki; Masato Mutsuga; Kazuro Fujimoto; Yoshiyuki Tokuda; Sachie Terazawa; Kei Yagami; Akihiko Usui
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2014-11-22

Review 9.  Quality measurement in orthopaedics: the purchasers' view.

Authors:  David Lansky; Arnold Milstein
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-07-30       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Does preservation of the sub-valvular apparatus during mitral valve replacement affect long-term survival and quality of life? A Microsimulation Study.

Authors:  Christopher Rao; Jonathan Hart; Andre Chow; Fotios Siannis; Polyxeni Tsalafouta; Bari Murtuza; Ara Darzi; Frank C Wells; Thanos Athanasiou
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2008-04-23       Impact factor: 1.637

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.