Literature DB >> 30091187

Hospital readmission rates are similar between patients with mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valves.

Arman Kilic1,2, Valentino Bianco1, Thomas G Gleason1,2, Edgar Aranda-Michel1, Danny Chu1,2, Forozan Navid1,2, Andrew D Althouse2, Ibrahim Sultan1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate hospital readmission rates and clinical outcomes between bioprosthetic (bAVR) and mechanical (mAVR) aortic valve replacements (AVR).
METHODS: Adults aged 50 years or older undergoing isolated or concomitant AVR between 2011 and 2017 were included. The primary outcome was 5-year hospital readmission. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk-adjusted impact of bAVR versus mAVR on outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 2981 patients were included: 406 (14%) mAVR and 2575 (86%) bAVR. Mean follow-up was 2.9 ± 1.9 years. Operative mortality was comparable (4% bAVR vs 3% mAVR; P = 0.30). There was no risk-adjusted difference in 30-day (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, P = 0.46), 1-year (HR 1.17, P = 0.52), or 5-year mortality (HR 0.99, P = 0.93). Aortic valve 5-year reoperation rates were comparable (1%, P = 0.32). Risk-adjusted hospital readmissions were similar at 30 days (14% vs 15%; P = 0.63), 1 year (30% vs 27%; P = 0.43), and 5 years (55% vs 53%; P = 0.83) in the bAVR and mAVR groups, respectively. Similar findings were demonstrated when evaluating readmissions for bleeding (5-year readmission: 8% bAVR vs 10% mAVR; P = 0.36).
CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of over 2900 AVRs, readmissions within 5 years were comparable between groups at approximately 50%, with patients being at highest risk in the early postdischarge period. Readmissions for bleeding constituted a minority of all readmissions for both cohorts.
© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aortic regurgitation; aortic stenosis; aortic valve replacement; valve surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30091187     DOI: 10.1111/jocs.13781

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Card Surg        ISSN: 0886-0440            Impact factor:   1.620


  4 in total

1.  Utilization of mechanical prostheses and outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement at safety net hospitals.

Authors:  Samuel T Kim; Zachary Tran; Yu Xia; Vishal Dobaria; Ayesha Ng; Peyman Benharash
Journal:  Surg Open Sci       Date:  2022-04-20

2.  Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves in patients on dialysis.

Authors:  Patrick G Chan; Ibrahim Sultan; Thomas G Gleason; Forozan Navid; Arman Kilic
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Bicuspid aortic valve repair: systematic review on long-term outcomes.

Authors:  George J Arnaoutakis; Ibrahim Sultan; Mary Siki; Joseph E Bavaria
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2019-05

4.  Outcomes of tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients 50 to 70 years of age.

Authors:  Lauren V Huckaby; Ibrahim Sultan; Thomas G Gleason; Shangzhen Chen; Floyd Thoma; Forozan Navid; Arman Kilic
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2020-07-11       Impact factor: 1.778

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.