Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Analysis.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Cardiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/2111843
M Broadwin, N Ramkumar, D J Malenka, R D Quinn, C S Ross, F Hirashima, J D Klemperer, R S Kramer, G L Sardella, B Westbrook, A W Discipio, A Iribarne, M P Robich
{"title":"Long-Term Outcomes of Bovine versus Porcine Mitral Valve Replacement: A Multicenter Analysis.","authors":"M Broadwin,&nbsp;N Ramkumar,&nbsp;D J Malenka,&nbsp;R D Quinn,&nbsp;C S Ross,&nbsp;F Hirashima,&nbsp;J D Klemperer,&nbsp;R S Kramer,&nbsp;G L Sardella,&nbsp;B Westbrook,&nbsp;A W Discipio,&nbsp;A Iribarne,&nbsp;M P Robich","doi":"10.1155/2023/2111843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Recent national guidelines recommending mitral valve replacement (MVR) for severe secondary mitral regurgitation have resulted in an increased utilization of mitral bioprosthesis. There is a paucity of data on how longitudinal clinical outcomes vary by prosthesis type. We examined long-term survival and risk of reoperation between patients having bovine vs. porcine MVR. <i>Study Design</i>. A retrospective analysis of MVR or MVR + coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) from 2001 to 2017 among seven hospitals reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. The analytic cohort included 1,284 patients undergoing MVR (801 bovine and 483 porcine). Baseline comorbidities were balanced using 1 : 1 propensity score matching with 432 patients in each group. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the overall cohort, patients receiving porcine valves were more likely to have diabetes (19% bovine vs. 29% porcine; <i>p</i> < 0.001), COPD (20% bovine vs. 27% porcine; <i>p</i>=0.008), dialysis or creatinine >2 mg/dL (4% bovine vs. 7% porcine; <i>p</i>=0.03), and coronary artery disease (65% bovine vs. 77% porcine; <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was no difference in stroke, acute kidney injury, mediastinitis, pneumonia, length of stay, in-hospital morbidity, or 30-day mortality. In the overall cohort, there was a difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00-1.37; <i>p</i>=050)). However, there was no difference in reoperation (porcine HR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.23-1.32; <i>p</i>=0.185)). In the propensity-matched cohort, patients were matched on all baseline characteristics. There was no difference in postoperative complications or in-hospital morbidity and 30-day mortality. After 1 : 1 propensity score matching, there was no difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.81-1.17; <i>p</i>=0.756)) or risk of reoperation (porcine HR 0.54 (95% CI: 0.20-1.47; <i>p</i>=0.225)).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this multicenter analysis of patients undergoing bioprosthetic MVR, there was no difference in perioperative complications and risk of reoperation of long-term survival after matching.</p>","PeriodicalId":9494,"journal":{"name":"Cardiology Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10328727/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2111843","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Recent national guidelines recommending mitral valve replacement (MVR) for severe secondary mitral regurgitation have resulted in an increased utilization of mitral bioprosthesis. There is a paucity of data on how longitudinal clinical outcomes vary by prosthesis type. We examined long-term survival and risk of reoperation between patients having bovine vs. porcine MVR. Study Design. A retrospective analysis of MVR or MVR + coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) from 2001 to 2017 among seven hospitals reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. The analytic cohort included 1,284 patients undergoing MVR (801 bovine and 483 porcine). Baseline comorbidities were balanced using 1 : 1 propensity score matching with 432 patients in each group. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation.

Results: In the overall cohort, patients receiving porcine valves were more likely to have diabetes (19% bovine vs. 29% porcine; p < 0.001), COPD (20% bovine vs. 27% porcine; p=0.008), dialysis or creatinine >2 mg/dL (4% bovine vs. 7% porcine; p=0.03), and coronary artery disease (65% bovine vs. 77% porcine; p < 0.001). There was no difference in stroke, acute kidney injury, mediastinitis, pneumonia, length of stay, in-hospital morbidity, or 30-day mortality. In the overall cohort, there was a difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 1.17 (95% CI: 1.00-1.37; p=050)). However, there was no difference in reoperation (porcine HR 0.56 (95% CI: 0.23-1.32; p=0.185)). In the propensity-matched cohort, patients were matched on all baseline characteristics. There was no difference in postoperative complications or in-hospital morbidity and 30-day mortality. After 1 : 1 propensity score matching, there was no difference in long-term survival (porcine HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.81-1.17; p=0.756)) or risk of reoperation (porcine HR 0.54 (95% CI: 0.20-1.47; p=0.225)).

Conclusions: In this multicenter analysis of patients undergoing bioprosthetic MVR, there was no difference in perioperative complications and risk of reoperation of long-term survival after matching.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
牛与猪二尖瓣置换术的长期结果:一项多中心分析。
导论:最近的国家指南推荐二尖瓣置换术(MVR)治疗严重的继发性二尖瓣反流,这导致二尖瓣生物假体的使用增加。关于纵向临床结果如何随假体类型而变化的数据缺乏。我们比较了牛与猪MVR患者的长期生存率和再手术风险。研究设计。回顾性分析了2001年至2017年7家报告前瞻性临床登记的医院的MVR或MVR +冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)。分析队列包括1,284例接受MVR的患者(801例牛和483例猪)。基线合并症采用1:1倾向评分进行平衡,匹配每组432例患者。主要终点为全因死亡率。次要终点包括住院发病率、30天死亡率、住院时间和再手术风险。结果:在整个队列中,接受猪瓣膜治疗的患者更容易患糖尿病(19%牛vs 29%猪;p < 0.001), COPD(20%牛对27%猪;p=0.008),透析或肌酐>2 mg/dL(4%牛对7%猪;P =0.03),冠状动脉疾病(65%牛vs 77%猪;P < 0.001)。卒中、急性肾损伤、纵隔炎、肺炎、住院时间、住院发病率或30天死亡率无差异。在整个队列中,长期生存率存在差异(猪的HR为1.17 (95% CI: 1.00-1.37;p = 050))。然而,再手术率无差异(猪的危险度0.56 (95% CI: 0.23-1.32;p = 0.185)。在倾向匹配队列中,患者在所有基线特征上都是匹配的。术后并发症、住院发病率和30天死亡率均无差异。经1:1倾向评分匹配后,长期生存率无差异(猪的HR 0.97 (95% CI: 0.81-1.17;p=0.756))或再手术风险(猪的HR 0.54 (95% CI: 0.20-1.47;p = 0.225)。结论:在这项多中心分析中,生物假体MVR患者的围手术期并发症和再手术风险与匹配后的长期生存无差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cardiology Research and Practice
Cardiology Research and Practice Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Cardiology Research and Practice is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies that focus on the diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease. The journal welcomes submissions related to systemic hypertension, arrhythmia, congestive heart failure, valvular heart disease, vascular disease, congenital heart disease, and cardiomyopathy.
期刊最新文献
Effects of Cycloergometer on Cardiopulmonary Function in Elderly Patients after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Clinical Trial. Inhibiting H2AX Can Ameliorate Myocardial Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury by Regulating P53/JNK Signaling Pathway. Atrial Strain and Strain Rate in a General Population: Do These Measures Improve the Assessment of Elevated NT-proBNP Levels? The Pharmacological Mechanisms Underlying the Protective Effect of Ginsenoside Rg3 against Heart Failure. Beta-Thalassemia Major and Myocardial Iron Overload: A Longitudinal Study with Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1