Literature DB >> 28942968

Survival and long-term outcomes after mitral valve replacement in patients aged 18 to 50 years.

Samuel R Schnittman1, Shinobu Itagaki1, Nana Toyoda1, David H Adams1, Natalia N Egorova2, Joanna Chikwe3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To provide long-term data on survival and major morbidity after mitral valve replacement in patients aged 18 to 50 years.
METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 2727 patients aged 18 to 50 years who underwent isolated mitral replacement in California and New York from 1997 to 2006. Median follow-up time was 12.4 years (maximum 15.0 years). The primary endpoint was mortality; secondary endopoints were stroke, major bleeding, and reoperation. Propensity matching yielded 373 patient pairs.
RESULTS: Bioprosthetic valve use increased from 10% to 34% between 1997 and 2014 (P < .001). Among propensity score-matched patients, actuarial 15-year survival was 74.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 69.0%-78.7%) after bioprosthetic versus 80.8% (95% CI, 75.1%-85.3%) mechanical valve replacement (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.21-2.32, P = .002). At 15 years after mitral valve replacement, the cumulative incidence of stroke was similar (9.1% [95% CI, 6.0%-13.0%] vs 9.7% [95% CI, 6.7-13.4]; HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.57-1.59]); the cumulative incidence of major bleeding events was similar (7.9% [95% CI, 5.0%-11.5%] vs 11.5% [95% CI, 7.6%-16.2%]; HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.46-1.32]); and the cumulative incidence of reoperation after bioprosthetic valve replacement was greater (19.9% [95% CI, 15.4%-24.8%] vs 5.7% [95% CI, 3.5%-8.7%]; HR, 20.3 [95% CI, 4.0-102.8]), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The significant survival benefit associated with mechanical mitral valve replacement in adults ≤50 years may be due to the practice of implanting bioprostheses in sicker patients or those judged less likely to comply with long-term medication despite adjustment for baseline characteristics in propensity score matching.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  long-term outcomes; mitral valve; mitral valve replacement; nonelderly patients; prosthetic valve choice

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28942968     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.08.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg        ISSN: 0022-5223            Impact factor:   5.209


  4 in total

1.  Echocardiographic description and outcomes in a heterogeneous cohort of patients undergoing mitral valve surgery with and without mitral annular disjunction: a health service evaluation.

Authors:  Sadie Bennett; Jacopo Tafuro; Marcus Brumpton; Caragh Bardolia; Grant Heatlie; Simon Duckett; Paul Ridley; Prakash Nanjaiah; Chun Shing Kwok
Journal:  Echo Res Pract       Date:  2022-07-13

2.  Real-time intraoperative co-registration of transesophageal echocardiography with fluoroscopy facilitates transcatheter mitral valve-in-valve implantation in cases of invisible degenerated bioprosthetic valves.

Authors:  Isaac Wamala; Axel Unbehaun; Christoph Klein; Marian Kukucka; Dirk Eggert-Doktor; Semih Buz; Julia Stein; Simon Sündermann; Volkmar Falk; Jörg Kempfert
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-05-10

3.  Early paravalvular leak after conventional mitral valve replacement: A single-center analysis.

Authors:  Matteo Matteucci; Sandro Ferrarese; Cristiano Cantore; Vittorio Mantovani; Giada Pedroni; Giangiuseppe Cappabianca; Claudio Corazzari; Mariusz Kowalewski; Paolo Severgnini; Roberto Lorusso; Cesare Beghi
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 1.778

Review 4.  Mechanical or biologic prostheses for mitral valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jun Yu; En Qiao; Wei Wang
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2022-06-05       Impact factor: 3.287

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.