National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements

Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Volumn 149, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 1262-1269.e3

  Isaacs, Abby J ^a   Shuhaiber, Jeffrey ^b   Salemi, Arash ^c   Isom, O Wayne ^c   Sedrakyan, Art ^a  

^a WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^b RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Aortic valve replacement; Bioprosthetic valves; Comparative effectiveness; In hospital mortality; National Inpatient sample; Propensity score matching

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AORTA ANEURYSM; AORTA VALVE DISEASE; AORTA VALVE REPLACEMENT; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CHRONIC KIDNEY FAILURE; CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE; COMORBIDITY; CONGESTIVE HEART FAILURE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT; CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE; DIABETES MELLITUS; ENDOCARDITIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION; HEART VALVE BIOPROSTHESIS; HIGH VOLUME HOSPITAL; HOSPITAL DISCHARGE; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; INFECTION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LENGTH OF STAY; LOW VOLUME HOSPITAL; LUNG DISEASE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MECHANICAL HEART VALVE; MIDDLE AGED; NURSING HOME; PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RHEUMATIC HEART DISEASE; THROMBOEMBOLISM; ADOLESCENT; ADVERSE EFFECTS; AGE; AORTA VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DEVICES; FACTUAL DATABASE; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE REPLACEMENT; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; MORTALITY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL MODEL; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TRENDS; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AORTIC VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; RISK FACTORS; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84929607700     PISSN: 00225223     EISSN: 1097685X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.01.052     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. B.A. Carabello, and W.J. Paulus Aortic stenosis Lancet 373 2009 956 966
2. R.M. Suri, and H.V. Schaff Selection of aortic valve prostheses: contemporary reappraisal of mechanical versus biologic valve substitutes Circulation 128 2013 1372 1380
3. K. Hammermeister, G.K. Sethi, W.G. Henderson, F.L. Grover, C. Oprian, and S.H. Rahimtoola Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial J Am Coll Cardiol 36 2000 1152 1158
4. H. Oxenham, P. Bloomfield, D.J. Wheatley, R.J. Lee, J. Cunningham, and R.J. Prescott Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses Heart 89 2003 715 721
5. P. Stassano, L. Di Tommaso, M. Monaco, F. Iorio, P. Pepino, and N. Spampinato Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years J Am Coll Cardiol 54 2009 1862 1868
6. O. Lund, and M. Bland Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 132 2006 20 26.e3
7. A. Vahanian, O. Alfieri, F. Andreotti, M.J. Antunes, G. Barón-Esquivias, and H. Baumgartner Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): The Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Eur Heart J 33 2012 2451 2496
8. R.A. Nishimura, C.M. Otto, R.O. Bonow, B.A. Carabello, J.P. Erwin, and R.A. Guyton 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines J Am Coll Cardiol 63 2014 e57 e185
9. I. Vesely The evolution of bioprosthetic heart valve design and its impact on durability Cardiovasc Pathol 12 2003 277 286
10. T. Christ, H. Grubitzsch, B. Claus, and W. Konertz Long-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement with Edwards Prima Plus stentless bioprostheses in patients younger than 60 years of age J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147 2014 264 269
11. R.S. McClure, S. McGurk, M. Cevasco, A. Maloney, I. Gosev, and E.M. Wiegerinck Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: a propensity-matched analysis J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 148 2014 1931 1939
12. A. Weber, H. Noureddine, L. Englberger, F. Dick, B. Gahl, and T. Aymard Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 144 2012 1075 1083
13. N.J. Birkmeyer, J.D. Birkmeyer, A.N. Tosteson, G.L. Grunkemeier, C.A. Marrin, and G.T. O'Connor Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a decision analysis Ann Thorac Surg 70 2000 1946 1952
14. E.B. Schelbert, M.S. Vaughan-Sarrazin, K.F. Welke, and G.E. Rosenthal Hospital volume and selection of valve type in older patients undergoing aortic valve replacement surgery in the United States Circulation 111 2005 2178 2182
15. J.M. Brown, S.M. O'Brien, C. Wu, J.A.H. Sikora, B.P. Griffith, and J.S. Gammie Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137 2009 82 90
16. J. Dunning, H. Gao, J. Chambers, N. Moat, G. Murphy, and D. Pagano Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use - an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 142 2011 776 782.e3
17. J.A. Cook, P. McCulloch, J.M. Blazeby, D.J. Beard, D. Marinac-Dabic, and A. Sedrakyan IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage BMJ 346 2013 f2820
18. B.C. Astor, R.G. Kaczmarek, B. Hefflin, and W.R. Daley Mortality after aortic valve replacement: results from a nationally representative database Ann Thorac Surg 70 2000 1939 1945
19. D. Du, S. McKean, J.A. Kelman, J. Laschinger, C. Johnson, and R. Warnock Early mortality after aortic valve replacement with mechanical prosthetic vs bioprosthetic valves among Medicare beneficiaries: a population-based cohort study JAMA Intern Med 174 2014 1788 1795
20. Introduction to the HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). 2011. Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/NIS-Introduction-2011.jsp. Accessed September 24, 2014.
21. A. Elixhauser, C. Steiner, D.R. Harris, and R.M. Coffey Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data Med Care 36 1998 8 27
22. Rassen J, Doherty M, Huang W, Schneeweiss S. Pharmacoepidemiology toolbox. Available at: http://www.drugepi.org/dope-downloads/. Accessed May 13, 2014.
23. P.C. Austin Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 134 2007 1128 1135.e3
24. Yang D, Dalton J. A unified approach to measuring the effect size between two groups using SAS. SAS Global Forum, 2012. Available at: http://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings12/335-2012.pdf. Accessed December 17, 2014.
25. A. Kulik, F.D. Rubens, P.S. Wells, C. Kearon, T.G. Mesana, and J. van Berkom Early postoperative anticoagulation after mechanical valve replacement: a systematic review Ann Thorac Surg 81 2006 770 781
26. T.M. Sundt, K.J. Zehr, J.A. Dearani, R.C. Daly, C.J. Mullany, and C.G.A. McGregor Is early anticoagulation with warfarin necessary after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129 2005 1024 1031
27. A. Odén, and M. Fahlén Oral anticoagulation and risk of death: a medical record linkage study BMJ 325 2002 1073 1075
28. P. Bloomfield, A.H. Kitchin, D.J. Wheatley, P.R. Walbaum, W. Lutz, and H.C. Miller A prospective evaluation of the Björk-Shiley, Hancock, and Carpentier-Edwards heart valve prostheses Circulation 73 1986 1213 1222
29. A.A. Ghaferi, J.D. Birkmeyer, and J.B. Dimick Complications, failure to rescue, and mortality with major inpatient surgery in Medicare patients Ann Surg 250 2009 1029 1034
30. H.G. Reddy, T. Shih, M.J. Englesbe, F.L. Shannon, P.F. Theurer, and M.A. Herbert Analyzing "failure to rescue": Is this an opportunity for outcome improvement in cardiac surgery? Ann Thorac Surg 95 2013 1976 1981
31. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patient safety hospital quality metrics. Available at: http://www.qualityindicators.ahrq.gov. Accessed September 23, 2014.
32. A.A. Gonzalez, J.B. Dimick, J.D. Birkmeyer, and A.A. Ghaferi Understanding the volume-outcome effect in cardiovascular surgery: the role of failure to rescue JAMA Surg 149 2014 119 123
33. J.P. Puvimanasinghe, J.J. Takkenberg, M.J. Eijkemans, E.W. Steyerberg, L.A. van Herwerden, and G.L. Grunkemeier Choice of a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis for AVR: Does CABG matter? Eur J Cardio-Thorac Surg 23 2003 688 695
34. W.T. Brinkman, W.H. Williams, R.A. Guyton, E.L. Jones, and J.M. Craver Valve replacement in patients on chronic renal dialysis: implications for valve prosthesis selection Ann Thorac Surg 74 2002 37 42