In patients undergoing dialysis who require a valve replacement is a bioprosthetic valve superior to a mechanical prosthesis in terms of long-term survival and morbidity?

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 174-178
Author(s):  
Laura S Fong ◽  
Zhen Hao Ang ◽  
Hugh Wolfenden ◽  
Zakir Akhunji
Keyword(s):  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Mechanical Valve ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Bioprosthetic Valve ◽  
Valve Prosthesis ◽  
Mechanical Prosthesis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘In [dialysis patients undergoing a valve replacement] is [a bioprosthetic valve superior to a mechanical prosthesis] for [long-term survival and morbidity]’. Altogether more than 501 papers were found using the reported search, of which five represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. There was limited high-quality evidence with all studies being retrospective. One meta-analysis and four cohort studies provided the evidence that there was no significant difference in long-term survival based on prosthesis type. However, the majority of studies demonstrated a significantly higher rate of valve-related complications including bleeding and thromboembolism, and readmission to hospital in the mechanical valve prosthesis group, likely related to the requirement for long-term anticoagulation. We conclude that overall long-term survival in dialysis-dependent patients is poor. While prosthesis type does not play a significant contributing role to long-term survival, bioprosthetic valves were associated with significantly fewer valve-related complications. Based on the available evidence, a bioprosthetic valve may be more suitable in this high-risk group of patients as it may avoid the complications associated with long-term anticoagulation without any reduction in long-term survival.

scholarly journals Long-term survival after Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve replacement in Western Denmark: a multi-centre observational study

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lytfi Krasniqi ◽  
Mads P. Kronby ◽  
Lars P. S. Riber
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Valve Prosthesis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background This study describes the long-term survival, risk of reoperation and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing solitary surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CE-P) bioprosthetic in Western Denmark. The renewed interest in SAVR is based on the questioning regarding the long-term survival since new aortic replacement technique such as transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) probably have shorter durability, why assessment of long-term survival could be a key issue for patients. Methods From November 1999 to November 2013 a cohort of a total of 1604 patients with a median age of 73 years (IQR: 69–78) undergoing solitary SAVR with CE-P in Western Denmark was obtained November 2018 from the Western Danish Heart Registry (WDHR). The primary endpoint was long-term survival from all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were survival free from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE), risk of reoperation, cause of late death, patient-prothesis mismatch, risk of AMI, stroke, pacemaker or ICD implantation and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF). Time-to-event analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier curve, cumulative incidence function was performed with Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. Cox regression was applied to detect risk factors for death and reoperation. Results In-hospital mortality was 2.7% and 30-day mortality at 3.4%. The 5-, 10- and 15-year survival from all-cause mortality was 77, 52 and 24%, respectively. Survival without MACCE was 80% after 10 years. Significant risk factors of mortality were small valves, smoking and EuroSCORE II ≥4%. The risk of reoperation was < 5% after 7.5 years and significant risk factors were valve prosthesis-patient mismatch and EuroSCORE II ≥4%. Conclusions Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve shows a very satisfying long-term survival. Future research should aim to investigate biological valves long-term durability for comparison of different SAVR to different TAVR in long perspective.

Long-Term Survival for Patients With Preoperative Renal Failure Undergoing Bioprosthetic or Mechanical Valve Replacement

2011 ◽  
Vol 91 (4) ◽  
pp. 1127-1134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod H. Thourani ◽  
Eric L. Sarin ◽  
W. Brent Keeling ◽  
Patrick D. Kilgo ◽  
Robert A. Guyton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Failure ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Mechanical Valve ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival

Long-Term Survival for Patients with Metabolic Syndrome After Bioprosthetic or Mechanical Valve Replacement

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marek Polomsky ◽  
Patrick D. Kilgo ◽  
John D. Puskas ◽  
Michael E. Halkos ◽  
Vinod H. Thourani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Metabolic Syndrome ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Mechanical Valve ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival

scholarly journals Long-Term Survival After Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Aortic Valve Replacement in Denmark: A Multi-Centre Observational Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lytfi Krasniqi ◽  
Mads Philip Kronby ◽  
Lars Peter Schødt Riber
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Valve Prosthesis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background: This study describes the long-term survival, risk of reoperation and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing solitary surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CE-P) bioprosthetic in Denmark. The renewed interest in SAVR is based on the questioning regarding the long-term survival since new aortic replacement technique such as transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) probably have shorter durability, why assessment of long-term survival could be a key issue for patients.Methods: From November 1999 to November 2015 a cohort of a total of 1604 patients aged 20-91 undergoing solitary SAVR with CE-P in Western Denmark was obtained November 2018 from the Western Danish Heart Registry (WDHR). The primary endpoint was long-term survival from all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were survival free from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE), risk of reoperation, cause of late death, patient-prothesis mismatch, risk of AMI, stroke, pacemaker or ICD implantation and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF). Time-to event analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier curve, cumulative incidence function was performed with Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. Cox regression was applied to detect risk factors for death and reoperation.Results: In-hospital mortality was 2.7% and 30-day mortality at 3.4%. The 5-, 10- and 15-year survival from all-cause mortality was 77%, 52% and 24%, respectively. Survival without MACCE was 80% after 10 years. Significant risk factors of mortality were small valves, smoking and EuroSCORE II ≥4%. The risk of reoperation was <5% after 7.5 years and significant risk factors were valve prosthesis-patient mismatch and EuroSCORE II ≥4%.Conclusions: Patients operated with for aortic valve replacement with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve shows a very satisfying long-term survival. Future research should aim to investigate biological valves long-term durability for comparison of different SAVR to different TAVR in long perspective.

Determining Which Prosthetic to Use During Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Younger than 70 Years: A Systematic Review of the Literature

1969 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. E070-E081 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Borger ◽  
Eric J Charles ◽  
Eric D Smith ◽  
J Hunter Mehaffey ◽  
Robert B Hawkins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Mechanical Prosthesis ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Mechanical Prostheses

Background: The choice of bioprosthesis versus mechanical prosthesis in patients aged less than 70 years undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains controversial, with guidelines disparate in their recommendations. The objective of this study was to explore outcomes after AVR for various age ranges based on type of prosthesis. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Instructions for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using Medline (PubMed), Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases. Rates of long-term survival (primary outcome), reoperation, major bleeding, thromboembolism, stroke, structural valve deterioration, and endocarditis were compared between subjects receiving biologic and mechanical prostheses. Findings were grouped into patients aged <60 years, aged ≤65 years, and finally aged <70 years. Results: A total of 19 studies met inclusion criteria. Seven evaluated patients aged <60 years, 4 of which found mechanical prosthesis patients to have higher long-term survival, whereas the remaining studies found no difference. Eight additional studies included patients aged 65 years or younger, and 9 studies included patients aged <70 years. The former found no difference in survival between prosthesis groups, whereas the latter favored mechanical prostheses in 3 studies. Bleeding, thromboembolism, and stroke were more prevalent in patients with a mechanical prosthesis, whereas reoperation was more common in those receiving a bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Published literature does not preclude the use of bioprostheses for AVR in younger patients. As new valves are developed, the use of bioprosthetic aortic valves in younger patients will likely continue to expand. Clinical trials are needed to provide surgeons with more accurate guidelines.

scholarly journals Prosthesis–patient mismatch affects long-term survival after mechanical valve replacement

2008 ◽  
Vol 135 (5) ◽  
pp. 1076-1080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shun Kohsaka ◽  
Shaulnie Mohan ◽  
Salim Virani ◽  
Vei-Vei Lee ◽  
Ariadna Contreras ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Mechanical Valve ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival

scholarly journals Is It Definitely Clear That Long-Term Survival after Breast Cancer Surgery Is Not Affected by Anaesthetics?

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 3390
Author(s):  
Mats Enlund
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Survival Data ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Breast Cancer Surgery ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Term Survival ◽  
Long Term Survival ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Year

Retrospective studies indicate that cancer survival may be affected by the anaesthetic technique. Propofol seems to be a better choice than volatile anaesthetics, such as sevoflurane. The first two retrospective studies suggested better long-term survival with propofol, but not for breast cancer. Subsequent retrospective studies from Asia indicated the same. When data from seven Swedish hospitals were analysed, including 6305 breast cancer patients, different analyses gave different results, from a non-significant difference in survival to a remarkably large difference in favour of propofol, an illustration of the innate weakness in the retrospective design. The largest randomised clinical trial, registered on clinicaltrial.gov, with survival as an outcome is the Cancer and Anesthesia study. Patients are here randomised to propofol or sevoflurane. The inclusion of patients with breast cancer was completed in autumn 2017. Delayed by the pandemic, one-year survival data for the cohort were presented in November 2020. Due to the extremely good short-term survival for breast cancer, one-year survival is of less interest for this disease. As the inclusions took almost five years, there was also a trend to observe. Unsurprisingly, no difference was found in one-year survival between the two groups, and the trend indicated no difference either.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document