Innovations (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2018
Magna Ease Versus Trifecta Early Hemodynamics: A 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.
Yanagawa Bobby, Tam Derrick Y, Hong Kathryn, Mazine Amine, Bagai Akshay, Shahbaz Nazgol Kafaei, Ouzounian Maral, Verma Subodh
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis compares the early echocardiographic outcomes of aortic valve replacement using the two most commonly implanted stented bioprostheses.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until 2017 for studies comparing Magna or Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA USA) versus Trifecta (St Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN USA) aortic bioprosthetic valves. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome of mean gradient on echocardiography and secondary outcomes of effective orifice area, indexed effective orifice area, and in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS: There were two randomized controlled trial, three matched, and six unmatched retrospective observational studies with 2119 patients [median reported follow-up = 6 months (interquartile range = 6 to 12)]. The Magna/Magna Ease valve was associated with higher early mean gradient (mean difference = 4.09, 95% confidence interval = 3.48 to 4.69, P < 0.0001) and smaller effective orifice area (mean difference = 0.30, 95% confidence interval = -0.38 to -0.22, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in 30-day mortality between Magna/Magna Ease and Trifecta (relative risk = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 2.50, P = 1.0).
CONCLUSIONS: Trifecta may offer a small hemodynamic advantage compared with the Magna/Magna Ease valve with no differences in early mortality. Long-term follow-up is required to determine whether these differences persist and translate into differences in clinical outcomes.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until 2017 for studies comparing Magna or Magna Ease (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA USA) versus Trifecta (St Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN USA) aortic bioprosthetic valves. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed for the primary outcome of mean gradient on echocardiography and secondary outcomes of effective orifice area, indexed effective orifice area, and in-hospital mortality.
RESULTS: There were two randomized controlled trial, three matched, and six unmatched retrospective observational studies with 2119 patients [median reported follow-up = 6 months (interquartile range = 6 to 12)]. The Magna/Magna Ease valve was associated with higher early mean gradient (mean difference = 4.09, 95% confidence interval = 3.48 to 4.69, P < 0.0001) and smaller effective orifice area (mean difference = 0.30, 95% confidence interval = -0.38 to -0.22, P < 0.0001). There were no differences in 30-day mortality between Magna/Magna Ease and Trifecta (relative risk = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.41 to 2.50, P = 1.0).
CONCLUSIONS: Trifecta may offer a small hemodynamic advantage compared with the Magna/Magna Ease valve with no differences in early mortality. Long-term follow-up is required to determine whether these differences persist and translate into differences in clinical outcomes.