Mechanical or biologic prostheses for mitral valve replacement: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Issue 7 (5th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yu, Jun; Qiao, En; Wang, Wei
• Is Part Of: Clinical cardiology. Volume 45:Issue 7(2022)
• Page Start: 701
• Page End: 716
• Publication Date: 2022-06-05
• Subjects: bioprosthetic -- mechanical -- mitral valve replacement (MVR); Cardiology -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1002/clc.23854
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0160-9289

Abstract

Abstract: Either a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve is used in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, the optimal mitral prosthesis remains controversial. The aim of this meta‐analysis was thus to compare outcomes between mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVRm) and bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (MVRb) for MVR patients. We searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from January 1, 2000 to October 31, 2021 for studies that directly compared surgical outcomes of MVRm and MVRb. A total of 22 studies with 35 903 patients were included in the meta‐analysis ( n = 23 868 MVRm and n = 12 035 MVRb). The MVRm group displayed lower long‐term all causes mortality (HR, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77−0.91; p < .0001; I ² = 51%), and fewer mitral reoperation (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.23−0.50; p < .00001; I ² = 74%) than MVRb group. However, the MVRm group was associated with a greater risk of major bleeding events (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.14−1.29; p < .00001; I ² = 0%), stroke and systemic embolism (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.10−1.32; p < .0001; I ² = 0%) in matched or adjusted data. No significant difference was observed between MVRm and MVRb on operative mortality in matched/adjusted group (risk ratios: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.66−1.05; p = .12; I ² = 0%). The results were consistent with patients aged under 70 years old. Patients who received a MVRm is associated with 16% lower risk of long‐term mortality and 66% lower risk of mitral reoperation, but 20% greater risk of stroke or systemic embolism, 21% greater risk of major bleeding compared with MVRb in matched/adjusted studies group, which were consistent to patients younger than the age of 70 years who underwent MVR.