Dongyi Tony Du1, Stephen McKean2, Jeffrey A Kelman3, John Laschinger4, Chris Johnson2, Rob Warnock2, Chris M Worrall3, Art Sedrakyan5, William Encinosa6, Thomas E MaCurdy7, Hector S Izurieta8. 1. Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland2currently with Office of Surveillance and Biometrics, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug. 2. Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California. 3. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Washington, DC. 4. Office of Device Evaluation, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland. 5. Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Program and MDEpiNet Science and Infrastructure Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York. 6. Center for Delivery, Organization and Markets, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, Maryland. 7. Acumen, LLC, Burlingame, California8Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, California. 8. Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Early mortality for patients who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) may differ between mechanical and biological prosthetic (hereinafter referred to as bioprosthetic) valves. Clinical trials may have difficulty addressing this issue owing to limited sample sizes and low mortality rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare early mortality after AVR between the recipients of mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valves. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of patients 65 years or older in the Medicare databases who underwent AVR from July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2011. In the mixed-effects models adjusting for physician and hospital random effects, we estimated odds ratios (OR) of early mortality to compare mechanical vs bioprosthetic valves. EXPOSURES: Mechanical or bioprostheticaortic valve replacement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Early mortality was measured as death on the date of surgery, death within 1 to 30 or 31 to 365 days after the date of surgery, death within 30 days after the date of hospital discharge, and operative mortality (death within 30 days after surgery or at discharge, whichever is longer). RESULTS: Of the 66 453 Medicare beneficiaries who met inclusion criteria, 19 190 (28.88%) received a mechanical valve and 47 263 (71.12%) received a bioprosthetic valve. The risk for death on the date of surgery was 60% higher for recipients of mechanical valves than recipients of bioprosthetic valves (OR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.27-2.04; P < .001]; risk ratio [RR], 1.60). The risk difference decreased to 16% during the 30 days after the date of surgery (OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.09-1.28; P < .001]; RR, 1.16). We found no differences within 31 to 365 days after the date of surgery and within the 30 days after discharge. The risk for operative mortality was 19% higher for recipients of mechanical compared with bioprosthetic valves (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.13-1.30; P < .001]; RR, 1.19). The number needed to treat with mechanical valves to observe 1 additional death on the surgery date was 290; to observe 1 additional death within 30 days of surgery, 121. Consistent findings were observed in subgroup analyses of patients who underwent concurrent AVR and coronary artery bypass graft, but not in the subgroup undergoing isolated AVR. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort analysis of Medicare beneficiaries, use of mechanical aortic valves was associated with a higher risk for death on the date of surgery and within the 30 days after surgery compared with bioprosthetic aortic valves among patients who underwent concurrent AVR and coronary artery bypass graft but not isolated AVR.
IMPORTANCE: Early mortality for patients who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR) may differ between mechanical and biological prosthetic (hereinafter referred to as bioprosthetic) valves. Clinical trials may have difficulty addressing this issue owing to limited sample sizes and low mortality rates. OBJECTIVE: To compare early mortality after AVR between the recipients of mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valves. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis of patients 65 years or older in the Medicare databases who underwent AVR from July 1, 2006, through December 31, 2011. In the mixed-effects models adjusting for physician and hospital random effects, we estimated odds ratios (OR) of early mortality to compare mechanical vs bioprosthetic valves. EXPOSURES: Mechanical or bioprostheticaortic valve replacement. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Early mortality was measured as death on the date of surgery, death within 1 to 30 or 31 to 365 days after the date of surgery, death within 30 days after the date of hospital discharge, and operative mortality (death within 30 days after surgery or at discharge, whichever is longer). RESULTS: Of the 66 453 Medicare beneficiaries who met inclusion criteria, 19 190 (28.88%) received a mechanical valve and 47 263 (71.12%) received a bioprosthetic valve. The risk for death on the date of surgery was 60% higher for recipients of mechanical valves than recipients of bioprosthetic valves (OR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.27-2.04; P < .001]; risk ratio [RR], 1.60). The risk difference decreased to 16% during the 30 days after the date of surgery (OR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.09-1.28; P < .001]; RR, 1.16). We found no differences within 31 to 365 days after the date of surgery and within the 30 days after discharge. The risk for operative mortality was 19% higher for recipients of mechanical compared with bioprosthetic valves (OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.13-1.30; P < .001]; RR, 1.19). The number needed to treat with mechanical valves to observe 1 additional death on the surgery date was 290; to observe 1 additional death within 30 days of surgery, 121. Consistent findings were observed in subgroup analyses of patients who underwent concurrent AVR and coronary artery bypass graft, but not in the subgroup undergoing isolated AVR. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cohort analysis of Medicare beneficiaries, use of mechanical aortic valves was associated with a higher risk for death on the date of surgery and within the 30 days after surgery compared with bioprosthetic aortic valves among patients who underwent concurrent AVR and coronary artery bypass graft but not isolated AVR.
Authors: Fenton H McCarthy; Danielle C Savino; Chase R Brown; Joseph E Bavaria; Vinay Kini; Danielle D Spragan; Taylor R Dibble; Howard C Herrmann; Saif Anwaruddin; Jay Giri; Wilson Y Szeto; Peter W Groeneveld; Nimesh D Desai Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Samrachana Adhikari; Sharon-Lise Normand; Jordan Bloom; David Shahian; Sherri Rose Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 2.494
Authors: Ana López-de-Andrés; Napoleon Perez-Farinos; Javier de Miguel-Díez; Valentín Hernández-Barrera; Manuel Méndez-Bailón; José M de Miguel-Yanes; Rodrigo Jiménez-García Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 9.951
Authors: Rodrigo Jiménez-García; Napoleón Perez-Farinos; Javier de Miguel-Díez; Valentín Hernández-Barrera; Manuel Méndez-Bailón; Isabel Jimenez-Trujillo; José M de Miguel-Yanes; Ana López-de-Andrés Journal: Braz J Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2020-02-01
Authors: Huitzilihuitl Saucedo-Orozco; Jesus Vargas-Barron; Ricardo Márquez-Velazco; Julio Iván Farjat-Pasos; Karla Susana Martinez-Zavala; Valentin Jiménez-Rojas; Sergio Andres Criales-Vera; Jose Antonio Arias-Godínez; Giovanni Fuentevilla-Alvarez; Veronica Guarner-Lans; Israel Perez-Torres; Gabriela Melendez-Ramirez; Tomas Efrain Sanchez Perez; Maria Elena Soto Journal: Open Heart Date: 2022-08