Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2022 Apr 21:ezac268. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezac268. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials and propensity-score matched studies published by October 14th, 2021 according to PRISMA statement. Individual patient data on overall survival were extracted. One- and two-stage survival analyses, and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: 25 studies were identified, incorporating 8,721 bioprosthetic and 8,962 mechanical valves:. In the one-stage meta-analysis, mechanical valves cumulatively demonstrated decreased hazard for mortality (Hazard Ratio [HR] : 0.79, 95% Confidence interval [CI] : 0.74-0.84, p < 0.0001). Overall survival was similar between the compared arms for patients <50 years old (HR: 0.88, 95% CI : 0.71-1.1, p = 0.216), increased in the mechanical valve arm for patients 50-70 years old (HR : 0.76, 95% CI : 0.70-0.83, p < 0.0001), and increased in the bioprosthetic arm for patients >70 years old (HR : 1.35, 95% CI : 1.17-1.57, p < 0.0001). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the survival in the 50-70 years old group was not influenced by the publication year of the individual studies. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding in-hospital mortality, post-operative strokes and post-operative reoperation. All-cause mortality was found decreased in the mechanical group, cardiac mortality was comparable between the two groups, major bleeding rates were increased in the mechanical valve group, and reoperation rates were increased in the bioprosthetic valve group.
CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates seem to not be influenced by the type of prosthesis in patients <50 years old. A survival advantage in favour of mechanical valves is observed in patients 50-70 years old, while in patients >70 years old bioprosthetic valves offer better survival outcomes.
PMID:35445694 | DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezac268
