| Literature DB >> 18433480 |
Christopher Rao1, Jonathan Hart, Andre Chow, Fotios Siannis, Polyxeni Tsalafouta, Bari Murtuza, Ara Darzi, Frank C Wells, Thanos Athanasiou.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Techniques to preserve the sub-valvular apparatus in order to reduce morbidity and mortality following mitral valve replacement have been frequently reported. However, it is uncertain what impact sub-valvular apparatus preservation techniques have on long-term outcomes following mitral valve replacement. This study investigated the effect of sub-valvular apparatus preservation on long-term survival and quality of life following mitral valve replacement.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2008 PMID: 18433480 PMCID: PMC2374780 DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-3-17
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg ISSN: 1749-8090 Impact factor: 1.637
Figure 1Patients exist in either the "alive" or "dead" state. A patient can remain in either the "alive" state, or can move from the "alive" to the "dead" state at the end of each cycle. The probability of state transition is determined by valve-related mortality and baseline age and gender specific mortality. Whilst a patient exists in the "alive" state they accumulate an incremental utility payoff determined by the valve replacement technique used.
Summary of Model Parameters
| MODEL PARAMETER | VALUE | RANGE/SD | DISTRIBUTION | ||
| Valve-Related Mortality Hazard Ratio 1 Year [5] | 0.1084 | 0.0782 | - | 0.2049 | Triangular |
| Valve-Related Mortality Hazard Ratio 5 Year [5] | 0.0416 | 0.0197 | - | 0.0833 | Triangular |
| Overall Survival without Preservation (62 year old cohort) [32] | |||||
| Year 1 | 87.4% | ||||
| Year 2 | 84.3% | ||||
| Year 3 | 81.3% | ||||
| Year 4 | 77.5% | ||||
| Year 5 | 75.0% | ||||
| Overall Survival without Preservation (82 year old cohort) [32] | |||||
| Year 1 | 79.8% | ||||
| Year 2 | 65.9% | ||||
| Year 3 | 64.1% | ||||
| Year 4 | 58.1% | ||||
| Year 5 | 40.7% | ||||
| Baseline Mortality [31] | GAD Life Tables | ||||
| Postoperative Utility Without Preservation | |||||
| Age 60–69 | 0.6668 | 0.1410 | Normal | ||
| Age 70–79 | 0.6292 | 0.1330 | Normal | ||
| Age 80+ | 0.6058 | 0.1281 | Normal | ||
| Postoperative Utility With Preservation | |||||
| Age 60–69 | 0.7345 | 0.0660 | Normal | ||
| Age 70–79 | 0.6931 | 0.0622 | Normal | ||
| Age 80+ | 0.6673 | 0.0599 | Normal | ||
| Discount Rate [44] | 0.0350 | 0.0000 | - | 0.0600 | Triangular |
Utility Parameters used in the Model
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | |||||||||||||
| 1 | 207 | 194 | 0.03 | UK Baseline [50] | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.75 | 0.73 | ||||||
| 2 | 74 | 126 | 0.20 | |||||||||||||
| 3 | 5 | 47 | 0.35 | With Preservation | 0.79 | 0.07 | 0.78 | 0.07 | 0.75 | 0.07 | 0.73 | 0.07 | 0.69 | 0.06 | 0.67 | 0.06 |
| 4 | 0 | 24 | 0.70 | |||||||||||||
| Without Preservation | 0.72 | 0.15 | 0.71 | 0.15 | 0.68 | 0.14 | 0.67 | 0.14 | 0.63 | 0.13 | 0.61 | 0.13 | ||||
| 286 | 391 | |||||||||||||||
Figure 210-year survival curves illustrating survival following SAP and conventional MVR.
Figure 3Cumulative probability distribution of incremental QALY payoffs for SAP compared to conventional MVR.