Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2015
Mid- to long-term outcome comparison of the Medtronic Hancock II and bi-leaflet mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age: a propensity-matched analysis.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Wang Yin, Chen Si, Shi Jiawei, Li Geng, Dong Nianguo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare mid-long-term clinical outcomes between patients younger than 60 years of age undergoing bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement.
METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2009, patients younger than 60 years of age who received Medtronic Hancock II porcine bioprostheses were selected and compared with those who received mechanical bi-leaflet valves in the aortic position. A stepwise logistic regression propensity score identified a subset of 112 evenly matched patient-pairs. Mid-long-term outcomes of survival, valve-related reoperations, thromboembolic events and bleeding events were assessed.
RESULTS: The follow-up was only 95.1% complete. Fourteen measurable variables were statistically similar for the matched cohort. Postoperative in-hospital mortality was 3.6% (bioprosthetic valves) and 2.7% (mechanical valves) (P = 0.700). Survival at 5 and 10 years was 96.3 and 88.7% for patients receiving bioprosthetic valve replacement versus 96.3 and 87.9% for patients receiving mechanical valve replacement (P = 0.860), respectively. At 5 and 10 years after operations, freedom from valve-related reoperation was 97.2 and 94.8% for patients receiving mechanical valve replacement, and 96.3 and 90.2% for patients receiving bioprosthetic valve replacement (P = 0.296), respectively. There was no difference between freedom from thromboembolic events (P = 0.528) and bleeding events (P = 0.128) between the matched groups during the postoperative 10 years.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients younger than 60 years of age undergoing aortic valve replacement, mid-long-term survival rate was similar for patients receiving bioprosthetic versus mechanical valve replacement. Bioprosthetic valves were associated with a trend for a lower risk of anticoagulation treatment and did not have significantly greater likelihood of a reoperation. These findings suggest that a bioprosthetic valve may be a reasonable choice for AVR in patients younger than 60 years of age.
METHODS: From January 2002 to December 2009, patients younger than 60 years of age who received Medtronic Hancock II porcine bioprostheses were selected and compared with those who received mechanical bi-leaflet valves in the aortic position. A stepwise logistic regression propensity score identified a subset of 112 evenly matched patient-pairs. Mid-long-term outcomes of survival, valve-related reoperations, thromboembolic events and bleeding events were assessed.
RESULTS: The follow-up was only 95.1% complete. Fourteen measurable variables were statistically similar for the matched cohort. Postoperative in-hospital mortality was 3.6% (bioprosthetic valves) and 2.7% (mechanical valves) (P = 0.700). Survival at 5 and 10 years was 96.3 and 88.7% for patients receiving bioprosthetic valve replacement versus 96.3 and 87.9% for patients receiving mechanical valve replacement (P = 0.860), respectively. At 5 and 10 years after operations, freedom from valve-related reoperation was 97.2 and 94.8% for patients receiving mechanical valve replacement, and 96.3 and 90.2% for patients receiving bioprosthetic valve replacement (P = 0.296), respectively. There was no difference between freedom from thromboembolic events (P = 0.528) and bleeding events (P = 0.128) between the matched groups during the postoperative 10 years.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients younger than 60 years of age undergoing aortic valve replacement, mid-long-term survival rate was similar for patients receiving bioprosthetic versus mechanical valve replacement. Bioprosthetic valves were associated with a trend for a lower risk of anticoagulation treatment and did not have significantly greater likelihood of a reoperation. These findings suggest that a bioprosthetic valve may be a reasonable choice for AVR in patients younger than 60 years of age.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdultAge FactorsAnticoagulantsAortic ValveBioprosthesisChi-Square DistributionDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHeart Valve DiseasesHeart Valve ProsthesisHeart Valve Prosthesis ImplantationHemorrhageHospital MortalityHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreProsthesis DesignRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsThromboembolismTime FactorsTreatment Outcome