Journal of cardiac surgery · 2021
Trifecta versus perimount bioprosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement; systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yokoyama Yujiro, Kuno Toshiki, Takagi Hisato, Fukuhara Shinichi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Recent studies suggested higher rates of early structural valve degeneration or reintervention for the Trifecta valve compared to other valves. Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of the Trifecta valve and the Perimount valves in patients who underwent a surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).
METHODS: All randomized control trials and observational studies which investigated the outcomes of the Trifecta valve and Perimount valves were identified with PubMed and EMBASE. The endpoints were the rates of reintervention and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) for reintervention and all-cause mortality were combined with the random-effects model.
RESULTS: Our search identified 6 eligible observational studies which enrolled a total of 11,135 patients who underwent SAVR with either the Trifecta valve (n = 4932) or Perimount (n = 6203). Pooled analyses demonstrated that the reintervention rates were significantly higher with the Trifecta valve compared with Perimount valves (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 3.16 [1.83-5.46]; p < .0001; I2 = 40%). In contrast, all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (HR [95% CI] = 1.09 [0.75-1.58]; p = .32, I2 = 12%).
CONCLUSION: Our analysis showed that AVR with the Trifecta valve was associated with higher rates of reintervention compared for that with the Perimount valve. Although further long-term randomized trials are warranted, surgeons need to be cautious when choosing a bioprosthetic valve for patients undergoing SAVR.
METHODS: All randomized control trials and observational studies which investigated the outcomes of the Trifecta valve and Perimount valves were identified with PubMed and EMBASE. The endpoints were the rates of reintervention and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) for reintervention and all-cause mortality were combined with the random-effects model.
RESULTS: Our search identified 6 eligible observational studies which enrolled a total of 11,135 patients who underwent SAVR with either the Trifecta valve (n = 4932) or Perimount (n = 6203). Pooled analyses demonstrated that the reintervention rates were significantly higher with the Trifecta valve compared with Perimount valves (HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 3.16 [1.83-5.46]; p < .0001; I2 = 40%). In contrast, all-cause mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (HR [95% CI] = 1.09 [0.75-1.58]; p = .32, I2 = 12%).
CONCLUSION: Our analysis showed that AVR with the Trifecta valve was associated with higher rates of reintervention compared for that with the Perimount valve. Although further long-term randomized trials are warranted, surgeons need to be cautious when choosing a bioprosthetic valve for patients undergoing SAVR.