Literature DB >> 29452115

Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valve Replacement for Infective Endocarditis: Focus on Recurrence Rates.

Nana Toyoda1, Shinobu Itagaki1, Henry Tannous2, Natalia N Egorova3, Joanna Chikwe4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines for prosthesis selection in infective endocarditis recommend bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement based on life expectancy and comorbidity. However, contemporary outcome data are limited to institution series.
METHODS: The outcomes of 3,447 patients identified from mandatory discharge databases in California and New York who had either primary isolated mitral (n = 1,603) or aortic (n = 1,844) valve replacement for active endocarditis between 1998 and 2010 were compared according to whether they received bioprosthetic (n = 1,673, 48.5%) or mechanical (n = 1,774, 51.5%) valves. Drug abusers were analyzed as a separate cohort. The primary outcome was endocarditis recurrence. Median follow-up time was 6.8 years (range, 0 to 12). Last follow-up for survival was December 31, 2015.
RESULTS: Patients receiving bioprosthetic valves were older (60.4 ± 14.9 versus 53.4 ± 14.3 years, p < 0.001), with more comorbidity. There was no significant difference in 12-year survival with bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves after mitral (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98 to 1.34, p = 0.10) or aortic (adjusted hazard ratio 1.10, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.29, p = 0.26) valve replacement. Bioprosthetic and mechanical valves were associated with similar recurrence rates at 12 years: 10.4% (95% CI: 8.0% to 13.1%) versus 8.8% (95% CI: 6.9% to 10.9%), adjusted Cox p = 0.79 after mitral replacement; and 9.4% (95% CI: 7.5% to 11.6%) versus 10.0% (95% CI: 8.0% to 12.4%), adjusted Cox p = 0.81 after aortic valve replacement.
CONCLUSIONS: Bioprosthetic and mechanical valves are associated with similar survival and freedom from endocarditis recurrence. These data support guideline recommendations that patient factors guide prosthesis choice in infective endocarditis.
Copyright © 2018 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29452115     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.12.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  5 in total

1.  Bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement for infective endocarditis in patients aged 50 to 69 years.

Authors:  Xingjian Hu; Weiwei Jiang; Minghui Xie; Ruikang Guo; Wai Yen Yim; Nianguo Dong; Yin Wang
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2020-06-04       Impact factor: 2.882

Review 2.  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

3.  Infective Endocarditis: Still More Challenges Than Convictions.

Authors:  Catarina Sousa; Fausto J Pinto
Journal:  Arq Bras Cardiol       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 2.667

4.  Acute mitral valve regurgitation secondary to papillary muscle rupture due to infective endocarditis.

Authors:  Farshad Amirkhosravi; Qasim Al Abri; Alexander J Lu; Lamees I El Nihum; Renee K Eng; Moritz C Wyler von Ballmoos; Mahesh K Ramchandani
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2022-07-08       Impact factor: 1.522

5.  Stentless Root Replacement versus Tissue Valves in Infective Endocarditis - A Propensity-Score Matched Study.

Authors:  Jerry Easo; Marcin Szczechowicz; Philipp Hölzl; Adrian Meyer; Konstantin Zhigalov; Rizwan Malik; Rohit Philip Thomas; Alexander Weymann; Otto E Dapunt
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2020-08-01
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.