Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Middle-Aged Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhao DF, Seco M, Wu JJ, Edelman JB, Wilson MK, Vallely MP, Byrom MJ, Bannon PG

Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2016 Jan;

PMID: 26794881

Abstract

The choice of a bioprosthetic valve (BV) or mechanical valve (MV) in middle-aged adults undergoing aortic valve replacement is a complex decision that must account for numerous prosthesis and patient factors. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare long-term survival, major adverse prosthesis-related events, anticoagulant-related events, major bleeding, reoperation, and structural valve degeneration in middle-aged patients receiving a BV or MV. A comprehensive search from six electronic databases was performed from their inception to February 2016. Results from patients aged less than 70 years undergoing aortic valve replacement with a BV or MV were included. There were 12 studies involving 8,661 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar. There was no significant difference in long-term survival among patients aged 50 to 70 or 60 to 70 years. Compared with MVs, BVs had significantly fewer long-term anticoagulant-related events (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, p = 0.006) and bleeding (HR 0.48, p < 0.00001) but significantly greater major adverse prosthesis-related events (HR 1.82, p = 0.02), including reoperation (HR 2.19, p < 0.00001). The present meta-analysis found no significant difference in survival between BVs and MVs in patients aged 50 to 70 or 60 to 70 years. Compared with MVs, BVs have reduced risk of major bleeding and anticoagulant-related events but increased risk of structural valve degeneration and reoperation. However, the mortality consequences of reoperation appear lower than that of major bleeding, and recent advances may further lower the reoperation rate for BV. Therefore, this review supports the current trend of using BVs in patients more than 60 years of age.

A meta-analysis of endoscopic versus conventional open radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass graft surgery

Cao C, Tian DH, Ang SC, Peeceeyen S, Allan J, Fu B, Yan TD

Innovations (Phila) 2014 Jul-Aug;9(4):269-75

PMID: 25084252

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The radial artery has been demonstrated to provide superior long-term patency outcomes compared with saphenous veins for selected patients who undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Recently, endoscopic radial artery harvesting has been popularized to improve cosmetic and perioperative outcomes. However, concerns have been raised regarding the effects on long-term survival and graft patency of this relatively novel technique. The present meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and the efficacy of endoscopic radial artery harvesting versus the conventional open approach.

METHODS: A systematic review of the current literature was performed on five electronic databases. All comparative studies on endoscopic versus open radial artery harvesting were included for analysis. Primary endpoints included mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction. Secondary endpoints included graft patency, wound infection, hematoma formation, and paresthesia.

RESULTS: Twelve studies involving 3314 patients were included for meta-analysis according to predefined selection criteria. There were no statistically significant differences in overall mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, or graft patency between the two surgical techniques. However, patients who underwent endoscopic harvesting were found to have significantly lower incidences of wound infection, hematoma formation, and paresthesia.

CONCLUSIONS: Current literature on endoscopic harvesting of the radial artery for coronary artery bypass graft surgery is limited by relatively short follow-up periods as well as differences in patient selection and surgical techniques. In addition, there are currently no randomized controlled trials to provide robust clinical data. However, the available evidence suggests that the endoscopic approach is associated with superior perioperative outcomes without clear evidence demonstrating compromised patency or survival outcomes.

A meta-analysis of MitraClip system versus surgery for treatment of severe mitral regurgitation

Wan B, Rahnavardi M, Tian DH, Phan K, Munkholm-Larsen S, Bannon PG, Yan TD

Ann Cardiothorac Surg 2013 Nov;2(6):683-92

PMID: 24349969

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mitral regurgitation (MR) is the second most common valvular heart disease after aortic stenosis. Without intervention, prognosis is poor in patients with severe symptomatic MR. While surgical repair is recommended for many patients with severe degenerative MR (DMR), as many as 49% of patients do not qualify as they are at high surgical risk. Furthermore, surgical correction for functional MR (FMR) is controversial with suboptimal outcomes and significant perioperative mortality. The percutaneous MitraClip implantation can be seen as a viable option in high surgical risk patients. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the safety, clinical efficacy, and survival outcomes of MitraClip implantation with surgical correction of severe MR.

METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched for original published studies from January 2000 to August 2013. Two reviewers independently appraised studies, using a standard form, and extracted data on methodology, quality criteria, and outcome measures. All data were extracted and tabulated from the relevant articles’ texts, tables, and figures and checked by another reviewer.

RESULTS: Overall 435 publications were identified. After applying selection criteria and removing serial publications with accumulating number of patients or increased length of follow-up, four publications with the most complete dataset were included for quality appraisal and data extraction. There was one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and three prospective observational studies. At baseline, patients in the MitraClip group were significantly older (P=0.01), had significantly lower LVEF (P=0.03) and significantly higher EuroSCORE (P2 was significantly higher in the MitraClip group compared to the surgical group (17.2% vs. 0.4%; P<0.0001). 30-day mortality was not statistically significant (1.7% vs. 3.5%; P=0.54), nor were neurological events (0.85% vs. 1.74%; P=0.43), reoperations for failed MV procedures (2% vs. 1%; P=0.56), NYHA Class III/IV (5.7% vs. 11.3; P=0.42) and mortality at 12 months (7.4% vs. 7.3%; P=0.66).

CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher risk profile in the MitraClip patients compared to surgical intervention, the clinical outcomes were similar although surgery was more effective in reducing MR in the early post procedure period. We conclude the non-inferiority of the MitraClip as a treatment option for severe, symptomatic MR in comparison to conventional valvular surgery.

Stay in the loop

Subscribe to our Heart to Heart Newsletter to keep up with the latest developments in heart and lung research from The Baird Institute.

Honour a Loved One

  • Fundraise in memory of someone special to you.

Challenge Yourself

  • Run a marathon
  • Do a long bike ride
  • Walk 10km each day for a month
  • Do 50 sit ups every day for a week
  • Join an organised event such as the City to Surf

Organise a community event

  • Have a backyard sausage sizzle
  • Host a trivia night

Seek sponsorship to help you quit those bad habits

  • Give up smoking
  • Refrain from alcohol for a month or more

Celebrate Through Giving

  • Choose to give on your birthday: Instead of giving you gifts, ask your friends and family to donate to The Baird Institute.
  • Say “I do” to improving the lives of heart and lung patients: Invite guests to donate to The Baird Institute on your wedding day
  • Turn anniversaries or personal milestones into fundraising events.

Create a CrowdRaiser on GiveNow

  1. Go to CrowdRaiser for The Baird Institute.
  2. Click on the button “Fundraise for this cause” – just under the header image.
  3. Create your Crowdraiser. Fill in the requested details.
  4. Customise your campaign. Add images and messages to make your CrowdRaiser unique.
  5. Share the link to your fundraising page via email, social media, or any way you like.
  6. Let us know via [email protected] that you have created a fundraiser so we can say thank you.

Join a community passionate about making a difference. GiveNow provides a dedicated platform for Australian charities, ensuring your efforts directly support our mission.

Start a Facebook Fundraiser

  1. Go to Facebook fundraisers.
  2. Click on the blue button – “Select nonprofit”
  3. Search for and select The Baird Institute
  4. Set your fundraising target
  5. Choose your campaign end date & a title for your Fundraiser
  6. Personalise your fundraiser: Use the existing wording and photos or choose your own.
  7. Click on ‘Create’.
  8. Invite friends and family. Share the link for your fundraiser and encourage others to contribute.
  9. Let us know via [email protected] that you have created a fundraiser so we can say thank you.

Celebrate where your friends and family connect. Leverage your social network to make a real impact.