BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves in patients on dialysis. METHODS: All patients who underwent aortic (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) at a single institution from 2011-2017 were reviewed. Primary stratification was bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital readmission, valve reoperation rates and bleeding events. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for risk-adjustment. RESULTS: During the study period, 3,969 patients underwent AVR or MVR, of which 97 (2.4%) were on dialysis. In dialysis patients, unadjusted 30-day mortality was comparable between bioprosthetic (12.7%) versus mechanical (5.9%) valves (P=0.31). However, the bioprosthetic group had higher rates of 1-year (40.3% versus 15.2%; P=0.03) and 5-year mortality (67.9% versus 60.7%; P=0.02). Most patients were readmitted within 5 years with no differences between the groups (bioprosthetic 80.3% versus mechanical 100%; P=0.57). There were no valve reoperations in either group at 5 years. The 5-year readmission rate was higher in the mechanical cohort (10.5% versus 53.8%; P=0.05). Risk-adjusted analysis confirmed these findings, where mechanical valves were independently associated with reduced mortality at 1-year and 5-years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited life expectancy of patients on dialysis, mechanical valves have an intermediate term mortality benefit compared to bioprosthetic valves. This comes at the expense of a higher rate of readmission for bleeding. Although valve choice should consider multiple factors, these data suggest that mechanical valve usage in dialysis patients is reasonable.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate the outcomes of bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves in patients on dialysis. METHODS: All patients who underwent aortic (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) at a single institution from 2011-2017 were reviewed. Primary stratification was bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital readmission, valve reoperation rates and bleeding events. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used for risk-adjustment. RESULTS: During the study period, 3,969 patients underwent AVR or MVR, of which 97 (2.4%) were on dialysis. In dialysis patients, unadjusted 30-day mortality was comparable between bioprosthetic (12.7%) versus mechanical (5.9%) valves (P=0.31). However, the bioprosthetic group had higher rates of 1-year (40.3% versus 15.2%; P=0.03) and 5-year mortality (67.9% versus 60.7%; P=0.02). Most patients were readmitted within 5 years with no differences between the groups (bioprosthetic 80.3% versus mechanical 100%; P=0.57). There were no valve reoperations in either group at 5 years. The 5-year readmission rate was higher in the mechanical cohort (10.5% versus 53.8%; P=0.05). Risk-adjusted analysis confirmed these findings, where mechanical valves were independently associated with reduced mortality at 1-year and 5-years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limited life expectancy of patients on dialysis, mechanical valves have an intermediate term mortality benefit compared to bioprosthetic valves. This comes at the expense of a higher rate of readmission for bleeding. Although valve choice should consider multiple factors, these data suggest that mechanical valve usage in dialysis patients is reasonable.
Authors: Vinod H Thourani; Eric L Sarin; W Brent Keeling; Patrick D Kilgo; Robert A Guyton; Ameesh B Dara; John D Puskas; Edward P Chen; William A Cooper; J David Vega; Cullen D Morris; Omar M Lattouf Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Adam D Zimmet; Aubrey Almeida; Jacob Goldstein; Gilbert C Shardey; Adrian W Pick; Cassie E Lowe; Damien J Jolley; Julian A Smith Journal: Heart Lung Circ Date: 2005-07-25 Impact factor: 2.975
Authors: A Böning; R H Boedeker; U P Rosendahl; B Niemann; S Haberer; P Roth; J A C Ennker Journal: Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2011-05-03 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: J F Matthias Bechtel; Christian Detter; Theodor Fischlein; Thomas Krabatsch; Brigitte R Osswald; Friedrich-Christian Riess; Fridtjof Scholz; Markus Schönburg; Christof Stamm; Hans-Hinrich Sievers; Claus Bartels Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Vincent Chan; W R Eric Jamieson; Arlen G Fleisher; David Denmark; Florence Chan; Eva Germann Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Parwis B Rahmanian; David H Adams; Javier G Castillo; Joseph Vassalotti; Farzan Filsoufi Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.209
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