Background This study compared long-term outcomes of biological and mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients requiring replacement of the mitral valve where repair was not feasible. Methods A single-centre registry of patients receiving MVR between 2005 and 2015 was established. Thirty-day mortality and long-term outcomes were analysed and compared. Results Three hundred twenty four patients underwent MVR (265 biological; 59 mechanical valves). Patients receiving biological valves were older ( p < 0.001), had a higher log EuroSCORE ( p < 0.001) and received less minimally invasive surgery ( p < 0.001). Immediate procedural mortality was 1.9%, which only occurred in the biological valve group. At 30 days, 9.0% of patients had died, 4.0% experienced stroke, 8.0% received a pacemaker and 10.5% suffered an acute renal failure. The rate of re-thoracotomy (14.2%) was lower in the biological (12.5%) than in the mechanical valve group (22.0%; adjOR 0.45 [0.20–1.00]; p = 0.050). Frequent long-term complications were stroke (9.2%) and bleeding (4.8%), with bleeding complications being higher in the mechanical valve group ( p = 0.009). During the follow-up period biological valves showed a numerically higher survival rate during the first years, which shifted after 3 years in favour of mechanical valves. At 10 years, survival rates were 62.4% vs. 77.1% in the biological and mechanical valve groups ( p = 0.769). Hazard ratio after adjustment was 0.833 (95% CI 0.430–1.615). Conclusion These data confirm that mechanical valve implantation is associated with an increased risk of bleeding. While there was a potential survival benefit during the first years after surgery for patients receiving a biological valves the difference became insignificant after a follow-up of 10 years. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13019-019-0943-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.