Mechanical versus bioprosthetic heart valves in patients on hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVES

Appropriate valve selection in patients on hemodialysis requiring valve replacement is a highly contentious issue because of these patients' short life expectancy and accelerated deterioration of bioprosthetic valves. This study aims to analyze clinical outcomes on the basis of the types of prosthetic valves and to estimate life expectancy and valve durability in this cohort.

METHODS

In total, 765 patients on hemodialysis undergoing first-time valve replacement were extracted from the Korean National Health Insurance Sharing Service database. Clinical outcomes were compared between the bioprosthetic (n = 421) and mechanical (MP; n = 344) valve groups. An age-dependent subgroup analysis was conducted, and the median survival time was calculated. A competing risk analysis for late clinical events was also performed.

RESULTS

After adjustment, the early clinical outcomes and late mortality were comparable between the 2 groups. Redo aortic valve replacements (AVRs) occurred more frequently in the bioprosthetic group (1.3%/patient-year vs 0.3%/patient-year; P = .002), whereas gastrointestinal bleeding was more common in the MP group (7.0%/patient-year vs 4.8%/patient-year; P = .010). The 2 groups did not show significant survival differences in all age-dependent subgroups. The estimated median survival times were 6.6, 4.0, and 2.1 years for patients aged <50, 50-64, and ≥65 years, respectively. Competing risk analysis showed a lower prevalence of redo AVRs and a greater prevalence of major bleeding events with MP use (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.24 [0.09-0.66]; P = .006 and 1.46 [1.13-1.89]; P = .004).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the considerably short lifespan of patients on hemodialysis, bioprosthetic valves may be a reasonable option for younger patients, except for those with hypercalcemia or potential candidates for kidney transplantation.