Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 377, Issue 19, 2017, Pages 1847-1857

  Goldstone, Andrew B ^a   Chiu, Peter ^a   Baiocchi, Michael ^a   Lingala, Bharathi ^a   Patrick, William L ^a   Fischbein, Michael P ^a   Woo, Y Joseph ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ADVERSE OUTCOME; AGED; AORTIC VALVE DISEASE; AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT; ARTICLE; BIOLOGIC AORTIC VALVE PROSTHESIS; BIOLOGIC MITRAL VALVE PROSTHESIS; BLEEDING; CALIFORNIA; CARDIOVASCULAR MORTALITY; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL OUTCOME; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; GROUPS BY AGE; HUMAN; INCIDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MECHANICAL AORTIC VALVE PROSTHESIS; MECHANICAL MITRAL VALVE PROSTHESIS; MIDDLE AGED; MITRAL VALVE DISEASE; MITRAL VALVE REPLACEMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; REOPERATION; SURVIVAL TIME; ADVERSE DEVICE EFFECT; AGE; AORTIC VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; EPIDEMIOLOGY; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE REPLACEMENT; MITRAL VALVE; MORTALITY; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; SURGERY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AORTIC VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; CALIFORNIA; FEMALE; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HEMORRHAGE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MITRAL VALVE; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; REOPERATION; STROKE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85033371772     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1613792     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, Gottdiener JS, Scott CG, Enriquez-Sarano M. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet 2006; 368: 1005-11.
2. Schwarz F, Baumann P, Manthey J, et al. The effect of aortic valve replacement on survival. Circulation 1982; 66: 1105-10.
3. Russo A, Grigioni F, Avierinos JF, et al. Thromboembolic complications after surgical correction of mitral regurgitation incidence, predictors, and clinical implications. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008; 51: 1203-11.
4. Chiang YP, Chikwe J, Moskowitz AJ, Itagaki S, Adams DH, Egorova NN. Survival and long-term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA 2014; 312: 1323-9.
5. Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J 2016; 37: 2658-67.
6. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 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 Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70: 252-89.
7. Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. 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 2000; 36: 1152-8.
8. Weber A, Noureddine H, Englberger L, et al. 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 2012; 144: 1075-83.
9. Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003; 89: 715-21.
10. Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M, et al. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 1862-8.
11. Chikwe J, Chiang YP, Egorova NN, Itagaki S, Adams DH. Survival and outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA 2015; 313: 1435-42.
12. Gammie JS, Sheng S, Griffith BP, et al. Trends in mitral valve surgery in the United States: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg 2009; 87: 1431-7.
13. Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2015; 149(5): 1262-1269.e3.
14. Zingmond DS, Ye Z, Ettner SL, Liu H. Linking hospital discharge and death records - accuracy and sources of bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2004; 57: 21-9.
15. Dupont WD, Plummer WD Jr. Power and sample size calculations: a review and computer program. Control Clin Trials 1990; 11: 116-28.
16. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983; 70: 41-55.
17. Cole SR, Hernan MA. Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168: 656-64.
18. Silber JH, Rosenbaum PR, Trudeau ME, et al. Multivariate matching and bias reduction in the surgical outcomes study. Med Care 2001; 39: 1048-64.
19. Uno H, Claggett B, Tian L, et al. Moving beyond the hazard ratio in quantifying the between-group difference in survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32: 2380-5.
20. Schermerhorn ML, Buck DB, O'Malley AJ, et al. Long-term outcomes of abdominal aortic aneurysm in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 328-38.
21. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999; 94: 496-509.
22. Cen YY, Glower DD, Landolfo K, et al. Comparison of survival after mitral valve replacement with biologic and mechanical valves in 1139 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 122: 569-77.
23. Ruel M, Chan V, Bedard P, et al. Very long-term survival implications of heart valve replacement with tissue versus mechanical prostheses in adults <60 years of age. Circulation 2007; 116: Suppl: I-294-I-300.
24. Badhwar V, Ofenloch JC, Rovin JD, van Gelder HM, Jacobs JP. Noninferiority of closely monitored mechanical valves to bioprostheses overshadowed by early mortality benefit in younger patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93: 748-53.
25. Kaneko T, Aranki S, Javed Q, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in patients <65 years old. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 147: 117-26.
26. Kirali K, Guler M, Tuncer A, et al. Fifteen-year clinical experience with the biocor porcine bioprostheses in the mitral position. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71: 811-5.