Literature DB >> 30660406

Outcomes of valve replacement with mechanical prosthesis versus bioprosthesis in dialysis patients: A 16-year multicenter experience.

Yuki Ikeno1, Nobuhiko Mukohara2, Yoshiaki Fukumura3, Satoshi Tobe4, Kunio Gan5, Hidefumi Obo6, Kazunori Yoshida7, Yutaka Okita8.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of heart valve replacement with mechanical prosthesis (MP) versus bioprosthesis (BP) in patients on dialysis.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed at 7 hospitals. Patients on dialysis who underwent valve replacement were included. Survival, reoperation, bleeding, and embolic events were compared across the MP and BP groups.
RESULTS: Between April 2000 and April 2016, 312 patients on dialysis were enrolled in our study (MP: 94 patients [30.1%], BP: 218 patients [69.9%]). Mean follow-up was 3.4 ± 3.6 years. Five-year and 10-year survival rates were similar in both groups (MP: 57.4 ± 5.5% at 5 years and 46.3 ± 6.4% at 10 years, BP: 50.2 ± 4.1% at 5 years and 38.8 ± 4.5% at 10 years, P = .305). Multivariate Cox hazard analysis demonstrated that diabetic nephropathy (hazard ratio [HR], 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-2.73, P < .001), New York Heart Association functional classification ≥III (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.37-3.35, P = .001), and mitral valve replacement (HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 1.58-3.49, P < .001) were significant risk factors for late death. Valve selection was not a significant risk factor. Freedom from valve-related embolic event at 5 years was significantly lower in the MP group (MP: 88.3 ± 4.3% at 5 years, BP: 97.2 ± 1.6% at 5 years, P = .007). Freedom from valve-related reoperation or hemorrhagic events was similar across both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Valve selection was not associated with late survival outcomes in patients on dialysis. However, BP may have an advantage in preventing embolic events without increasing the incidence of valve-related reoperation when compared with MP.
Copyright © 2018 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aortic valve replacement; end-stage renal failure; hemodialysis; mitral valve replacement

Year:  2018        PMID: 30660406     DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.11.089

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


  4 in total

Review 1.  Prosthetic cardiac valves: history and review of cardiac prostheses clinically available in Japan.

Authors:  Eiki Tayama; Kosuke Saku; Tomoyuki Anegawa; Atsunobu Oryoji; Shinya Negoto
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2021-08-25       Impact factor: 2.549

2.  Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves in chronic dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin S Kim; Emilie P Belley-Côté; Saurabh Gupta; Arjun Pandey; Ali Alsagheir; Ahmad Makhdoum; Graham McClure; Brooke Newsome; Sophie W Gao; Matthias Bossard; Tetsuya Isayama; Yasuhisa Ikuta; Michael Walsh; Amit X Garg; Gordon H Guyatt; Richard P Whitlock
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 2.840

3.  Mid-term results of surgical aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses in hemodialysis patients.

Authors:  Ikuko Shibasaki; Taira Fukuda; Hironaga Ogawa; Go Tsuchiya; Yusuke Takei; Masahiro Seki; Takashi Kato; Yuta Kanazawa; Shunsuke Saito; Toshiyuki Kuwata; Yasuyuki Yamada; Yasuo Haruyama; Hirotsugu Fukuda
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2022-04-11

4.  Short- and long-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement in patients on dialysis.

Authors:  Sossio Perrotta; Susanne J Nielsen; Emma C Hansson; Vincenzo Lepore; Andreas Martinsson; Anders Jeppsson; Martin Lindgren
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2022-02       Impact factor: 2.895

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.