Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2020, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (3): 547-556. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.03.023

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Safety of biological valves for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bao-qi ZENG1,Shu-qing YU1,Yao CHEN1,Wei ZHAI2,Bin LIU2,Si-yan ZHAN1,Feng SUN1,△()   

  1. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing 100191, China
    2. Beijing Center for ADR Monitoring, Beijing 100024, China
  • Received:2020-02-13 Online:2020-06-18 Published:2020-06-30
  • Contact: Feng SUN E-mail:sunfeng@bjmu.edu.cn
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China(71673003)

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

Abstract:

Objective: To provide a comprehensive and contemporary overview of the long-term safety outcomes after aortic valve replacements (AVR) with conventional biological heart valve (stented or stentless).Methods: English databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrial.gov) and Chinese databases (CNKI, VIP, WanFang, and SinoMed) were searched systemically from January 1, 2000 to January 26, 2019. Eligible randomized controlled trials, non-randomized clinical trials, cohort studies (retrospective or prospective), and unselected case series were included. Strict screening of the obtained literature was conducted to extract relevant data by two reviewers. Other inclusion criteria were studied reporting on outcomes of AVR with biological valves (stented or stentless), with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve repair procedure, with mean follow-up length equal to or longer than 5 years. We excluded studies that reported only a specific patient group (e.g., patients with renal failure, or pregnancy), without the report of biological valve type, or with study population size less than 100. The meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 software.Results: In this study, 53 papers (in total 57 study groups) involving 47 803 patients were included. (1) The all-cause mortality was 6.33/100 patient-years (95%CI: 5.85-6.84). Subgroup analysis showed that the mortality rates of porcine and bovine valve prostheses were 5.69/100 patient-years (95%CI: 5.05-6.41) and 7.29/100 patient-years (95%CI: 6.53-8.13), respectively. The all-cause mortality rates for stented and stentless valve were 6.69/100 patient-years (95%CI: 6.12-7.30) and 5.21/100 patient-years (95%CI: 4.43-6.14), respectively. (2) The incidence rate of thromboembolism was 1.16/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.96-1.40), the incidence rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation was 1.08/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.75-1.54), the incidence rate of stroke was 0.74/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.51-1.06), the incidence rate of structural valve dysfunction (SVD) was 0.73/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.59-0.91), the incidence rate of major bleeding was 0.52/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.41-0.65), the incidence rate of endocarditis was 0.38/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.33-0.44), and the incidence rate of non-structural valve dysfunction (NSVD) was 0.20/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.13-0.31). The total reoperation rate for biological aortic valve was 0.77/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.65-0.91), and the SVD related reoperation rate was 0.46/100 patient-years (95%CI: 0.36-0.58).Conclusion: The all-cause mortality for conventional biological AVR was 6.33/100 patient-years. Thromboembolism, PPM implantation, reoperation, stroke, and SVD were major long term complications.

Key words: Aortic valve replacement, Bioprosthesis, Systematic review, Meta-analysis

CLC Number: 

  • R654.2

Figure 1

Flow chart of studies considered for inclusion and exclusion CNKI, China national knowledge infrastructure database; VIP, Chinese scientific and technical journals database; SinoMed, Chinese biomedical literature database; CENTRAL, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials; MVR, mitral valve replacement."

Table 1

Study characteristics and patient demographics of 57 included study groups"

First author Year of publication Country Implantation period Follow-up/years CABG/% Mean age (range)/years Female/% Patient no. Type of valve Quality assessment
Aasbjerg-1[9]* 2019 Denmark 2000-2014 8.4 58 75 48 1 241 Sorin Mitroflow 7
Aasbjerg-2[9]* 2019 Denmark 2000-2014 5.1 62 74 35 3 212 Edwards Perimount 7
Accola[10] 2008 United States 1989-2003 6.0 55 75 (65-89) 33 398 Edwards Perimount 5
Albert[11] 2010 Germany 1996-2006 7.7 33 73 48 815 Medtronic Freestyle S 6
Amabile[12] 2014 France 1997-2004 5.9 24 75 48 500 Medtronic Freestyle S 7
Andreas-1[13]* 2015 Australia 2002-2008 6.0 0 73 54 295 Edwards Perimount 5
Andreas-2[13]* 2015 Australia 2002-2008 6.0 0 74 57 163 Medtronic Mosaic 5
Anselmi[14] 2014 France 1994-2004 8.5 15 75 - 1 005 Medtronic Mosaic 6
Bach[15] 2014 North America/Europe 1992-2005 7.6 39 72 (36-91) 45 725 Medtronic Freestyle S 7
Benhameid[16] 2008 Canada/Europe 1982-1992 8.6 24 70 (60-94) - 161 Sorin Mitroflow 7
Biglioli[17] 2004 Italy 1984-2000 6.0 23 67 (19-83) 48 327 Edwards Perimount 6
Bottio[18] 2004 Italy 1992-2001 5.0 22 75 (45-91) 50 258 SJM Biocor 7
Bourguignon[19] 2015 France 1984-2008 6.7 23 71 (16-91) 32 2 659 Edwards Perimount 7
Celiento[20] 2018 Italy 1995-2016 8.2 15 74 (40-85) 24 254 Medtronic Mosaic 6
Chan[21] 2010 Canada 1990-2007 5.6 52 73 30 1 021 Medtronic Hancock 7
Christ[22] 2014 Germany 1993-2001 8.5 - 53 18 120 Edwards Prima Plus S 6
Corbineau[23] 2001 France 1987-1990 7.2 0 72 (28-89) 34 188 Medtronic Mosaic 5
David[25] 2008 Canada 1991-2004 7.7 32 65 (22-84) 32 357 SJM Toronto S 5
David[24] 2010 Canada 1982-2004 12.4 50 67 (19-94) 24 1 134 Medtronic Hancock 7
de la Fuente[26] 2003 Spain 1988-2000 6.0 0 69 (30-81) - 124 Edwards Porcine 6
Dellgren[27] 2002 Sweden 1990-2000 5.5 31 79 (61-89) 66 112 SJM Biocor S 6
Desai[28] 2004 Canada 1992-2000 5.8 35 65 (33-82) 35 200 SJM Toronto S 5
Flameng[29] 2006 Belgium 1985-2003 6.1 47 73 (57-87) 50 506 Edwards Perimount 5
Forcillo[30] 2013 Canada 1981-2011 6.0 42 71 (18-90) 40 2 405 Edwards Perimount 6
Gansera[31] 2014 Germany 1993-2007 6.1 0 79 (31-91)b 54 272 Medtronic Mosaic 6
Gao[32] 2004 United States 1974 -1996 6.4 41 74 (23-95) 38 518 Edwards Porcine 7
Glaser[33] 2014 Sweden 2002-2010 6.9 53 76 40 355 Medtronic Mosaic 6
Grunkemeier[34] 2012 United States 1976-1994 7.4 39 74 38 469 Edwards Porcine 7
Guenzinger[35] 2015 Germany 1985-1996 8.4 38 73 48 455 SJM Biocor 6
Jamieson[36] 2001 Canada 1986-1996 6.2 - 67 (9-91) 41 836 Medtronic Mosaic 7
First author Year of publication Country Implantation period Follow-up/years CABG/% Mean age (range)/years Female/% Patient no. Type of valve Quality assessment
Jamieson[38] 2009 Canada/Germany 1992-2003 5.4 45 76 (53-91) 70 381 Sorin Mitroflow 7
Jamieson[37] 2005 Canada 1981-1999 7.8 43 69 (19-89) 31 1 823 Edwards Porcine 6
Johnston[39] 2015 United States 1982-2011 5.8 48 71 (18-91) 34 12 569 Edwards Perimount 7
Kurlansky[40] 2007 United States 1976-1999 5.3 0 77 (65-91) 43 438 Edwards Porcine 5
Lootens[41] 2017 Belgium 2003-2012 6.6 56 76 45 467 Sorin Mitroflow 6
Luciani[42] 2001 Italy 1992-1996 5.8 25 70 (26-83) 55 106 SJM Biocor S 5
McClure[43] 2010 United States 1991-2002 6.0 44 74 (19-95) 46 1 000 Edwards Perimount 6
Minakata[44] 2014 Japan 1986-2001 8.2 20 72 (21-89) 47 574 Edwards Perimount 6
Minami[45] 2005 Germany 1985-2004 5.5 54 76 (16-92) 70 1 516 Sorin Mitroflow 6
Mohammedi[46] 2014 Canada 1993-2013 10.3 33 68 44 531 Medtronic Freestyle S 7
Myken[47] 2009 Sweden 1983-2003 6.0 42 71 (16-88) 37 1 518 SJM Biocor 6
Nishida[48] 2014 Japan 1981-2013 5.8 17 70 36 313 Edwards Perimount 6
Pavoni[49] 2007 Italy 1994-2004 5.4 28 72 56 185 Cryolife O’Brien S 5
Kappetein[50] 2007 North America/Europe 1992-2001 6.2 39 72 (36-92) 45 725 Medtronic Freestyle S 4
Repossini[51] 2016 Europe 2004-2009 6.9 19 75 43 565 Sorin Freedom Solo S 7
Riess[52] 2018 Europe/Canada 1994-2000 8.8 - 70 34 797 Medtronic Mosaic 8
Rizzoli[53] 2006 Italy 1983-2002 6.4 29 68 42 809 Medtronic Hancock 7
Ruggieri[54] 2012 France 1983-1994 13.7 15 74 49 1 002 Edwards Porcine 7
Sj?gren[55] 2006 Sweden 1990-1993 6.2 49 80 (75-91) 61 152 Sorin Mitroflow 5
Sponga[56] 2017 Italy 2004-2019 6.0 - 76 71 106 Sorin Freedom Solo S 6
Stanger[57] 2015 Switzerland 2005-2009 5.9 40 74 (46-87) 46 149 Sorin Freedom Solo S 6
Wang[58] 2016 China 2002-2009 8.7 12 53 39 153 Medtronic Hancock 5
Webb-1[59]* 2018 United Kingdom 2002-2008 7.0 48 75 40 216 Medtronic Mosaic 5
Webb-2[59]* 2018 United Kingdom 2002-2008 7.2 44 75 37 806 Edwards Perimount 5
Wilbring[60] 2013 Germany 1998-2004 7.2 0 75 (55-89) 91 148 Sorin Mitroflow 5
Zibdeh-1[61]* 2018 United Kingdom 2001-2005 9.0 48 75 (40-91) 46 191 Edwards Porcine 6
Zibdeh-2[61]* 2018 United Kingdom 2001-2005 9.0 52 74 (51-91) 40 203 Medtronic Mosaic 6

Table 2

Meta-analysis results of biological aortic valves"

Items Total n Stented valve n Stentless valve n Porcine valve n Pericardial valve n
Number of study 56 43 13 34 22
Number of patients 47 803 43 332 4 471 17 853 29 950
Mean follow-up/years 6.7 6.7 7.3 7.8 6.1
Mean age/years 71.8 71.9 71.1 71.1 72.3
Female/% 39.0 38.3 45.0 38.9 39.0
CABG/% 40.1 41.1 30.7 32.3 44.8
Early mortality/%* 4.96 (4.42-5.54) 51 5.37 (4.76-6.01) 39 3.48 (2.45-4.67) 12 5.06 (4.34-5.83) 33 4.80 (3.96-5.71) 18
Late mortality/100 patient-years* 6.33 (5.85-6.84) 54 6.69 (6.12-7.30) 41 5.21 (4.43-6.14) 13 5.69 (5.05-6.41) 33 7.29 (6.53-8.13) 21
Stroke/100 patient-years* 0.74 (0.51-1.06) 10 0.71 (0.40-1.27) 6 0.73 (0.57-0.92) 4 0.92 (0.61-1.39) 5 0.50 (0.23-1.08) 5
Thromboembolism/100 patient-years* 1.16 (0.96-1.40) 37 1.16 (0.94-1.42) 29 1.14 (0.69-1.88) 8 1.35 (1.11-1.63) 24 0.89 (0.68-1.17) 13
Major bleeding/100 patient-years* 0.52 (0.41-0.65) 31 0.50 (0.39-0.66) 23 0.62 (0.41-0.91) 8 0.56 (0.43-0.75) 20 0.46 (0.32-0.67) 11
PPM/100 patient-years* 1.08 (0.75-1.54) 5
SVD/100 patient-years* 0.73 (0.59-0.91) 33 0.64 (0.52-0.77) 23 1.07 (0.64-1.80) 10 0.63 (0.47-0.85) 21 0.89 (0.64-1.25) 12
NSVD/100 patient-years* 0.20 (0.13-0.31) 20 0.17 (0.11-0.27) 16 0.43 (0.16-1.11) 4 0.25 (0.16-0.39) 15 0.10 (0.03-0.31) 5
Endocarditis/100 patient-years* 0.38 (0.33-0.44) 34 0.34 (0.29-0.41) 26 0.52 (0.42-0.65) 8 0.35 (0.29-0.43) 22 0.42 (0.33-0.54) 12
Reoperation/100 patient-years* 0.77 (0.65-0.91) 48 0.67 (0.56-0.80) 36 1.21 (0.92-1.60) 12 0.81 (0.67-0.98) 30 0.70 (0.53-0.92) 19
Reoperation for SVD/100 patient-years* 0.46 (0.36-0.58) 38 0.35 (0.27-0.47) 27 0.85 (0.60-1.20) 11 0.53 (0.41-0.67) 26 0.37 (0.23-0.60) 12

Table 3

Subgroup analysis of stented valves"

Items Medtronic Mosaic n Medtronic Hancock n Edwards Perimount n Edwards Porcine n Sorin Mitroflow n SJM Biocor n
Number of study 10 4 12 7 7 3
Number of patients 4 289 3 117 25 064 4 565 4 066 2 231
Mean follow-up/years 7.6 8.4 5.9 8.7 6.7 6.4
Mean age/years 72.3 68.5 71.7 72.2 75.6 71.6
Female/% 39.4 31.3 36.1 38.6 55.2 40.4
CABG/% 22.1 43.5 44.5 31.0 51.2 38.8
Early mortality/%* 5.03 (3.95-6.23) 10 4.65 (3.67-5.74) 4 4.78 (3.63-6.07) 9 6.94 (4.94-9.24) 7 6.02 (5.07-7.04) 6 5.20 (4.31-6.17) 3
Late mortality/100 patient-years* 5.87 (5.08-6.79) 9 3.80 (2.94-4.92) 4 6.50 (5.88-7.19) 11 7.71 (6.06-9.8) 7 9.56 (8.24-11.1) 7 7.12 (5.17-9.81) 3
Thromboembolism/100 patient-years* 1.24 (0.81-1.89) 8 1.08 (0.77-1.50) 2 0.79 (0.57-1.09) 8 1.68 (1.14-2.48) 5 1.31 (0.62-2.80) 3 1.61 (1.12-2.32) 3
Major bleeding/100 patient-years* 0.35 (0.18-0.70) 7 0.38 (0.25-0.58) 2 0.40 (0.22-0.72) 6 1.02 (0.28-3.72) 2 0.57 (0.25-1.28) 3 0.80 (0.65-0.98) 3
SVD/100 patient-years* 0.54 (0.32-0.90) 6 0.53 (0.34-0.83) 2 0.50 (0.31-0.80) 5 0.68 (0.43-1.07) 4 1.20 (0.85-1.69) 4 0.48 (0.18-1.26) 2
NSVD/100 patient-years* 0.19 (0.07-0.51) 6 0.03 (0.01-0.08) 1 0.06 (0.04-0.11) 2 0.26 (0.17-0.38) 3 0.23 (0.05-1.05) 2 0.40 (0.21-0.76) 2
Endocarditis/100 patient-years* 0.32 (0.18-0.54) 7 0.31 (0.20-0.46) 3 0.33 (0.27-0.41) 6 0.28 (0.20-0.39) 5 0.54 (0.35-0.85) 3 0.36 (0.12-1.11) 2
Reoperation/100 patient-years* 0.51 (0.31-0.84) 9 0.76 (0.64-0.90) 2 0.52 (0.38-0.72) 10 0.64 (0.41-1.01) 7 1.11 (0.78-1.60) 6 1.07 (0.75-1.53) 3

Figure 2

Meta-regression for late mortality"

Figure 3

Funnel plot for late mortality"

[1] Ensminger S, Fujita B, Bauer T, et al. Rapid deployment versus conventional bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic stenosis[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2018,71(13):1417-1428.
[2] Brown JM, O’Brien SM, Wu C, et al. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database[J]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2009,137(1):82-90.
[3] Yacoub MH, Takkenberg JJ. Will heart valve tissue engineering change the world?[J]. Nat Clin Pract Cardiovasc Med, 2005,2(2):60-61.
[4] 徐秀林, 张京航, 梁伟, 等. 人工心脏瓣膜质量及安全性评价[J]. 中国医疗器械杂志, 2004,28(5):360-362.
[5] Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, et al. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements [J]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2015, 149(5): 1262-1269.e3.
[6] Dunning J, Gao H, Chambers J, et al. Aortic valve surgery: marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use—an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database [J]. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2011, 142(4): 776-782.e3.
[7] Siregar S, de Heer F, Groenwold RH, et al. Trends and outcomes of valve surgery: 16-year results of Netherlands Cardiac Surgery National Database[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2014,46(3):386-397.
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu017 pmid: 24554075
[8] Fujita B, Ensminger S, Bauer T, et al. Trends in practice and outcomes from 2011 to 2015 for surgical aortic valve replacement: an update from the German Aortic Valve Registry on 42776 patients[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2018,53(3):552-559.
[9] Aasbjerg K, Mortensen PE, Norgaard MA, et al. Comparison of survival after aortic valve replacement with mitroflow or perimount prostheses[J]. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg, 2019,31(3):350-358.
[10] Accola KD, Scott ML, Palmer GJ, et al. Surgical management of aortic valve disease in the elderly: A retrospective comparative study of valve choice using propensity score analysis[J]. J Heart Valve Dis, 2008,17(4):355-365.
pmid: 18751463
[11] Albert A, Florath I, Rosendahl U, et al. The late impact of surgical skills and training on the subcoronary implantation of the Freestyle stentless bioprosjournal[J]. J Heart Valve Dis, 2010,19(1):104-114.
pmid: 20329496
[12] Amabile N, Bical OM, Azmoun A, et al. Long-term results of Freestyle stentless bioprosjournal in the aortic position: a single-center prospective cohort of 500 patients[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2014,148(5):1903-1911.
[13] Andreas M, Wallner S, Ruetzler K, et al. Comparable long-term results for porcine and pericardial prostheses after isolated aortic valve replacement[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2015,48(4):557-561.
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu466 pmid: 25527170
[14] Anselmi A, Flécher E, Ruggieri VG, et al. Long-term results of the Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosjournal in the aortic position[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2014,147(6):1884-1891.
[15] Bach DS, Kon ND. Long-term clinical outcomes 15 years after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless aortic bioprosjournal[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2014,97(2):544-551.
[16] Benhameid O, Jamieson WRE, Castella M, et al. CarboMedics mitroflow pericardial aortic bioprosjournal—Performance in patients aged 60 years and older after 15 years[J]. Thorac Cardiov Surg, 2008,56(4):195-199.
[17] Biglioli P, Spampinato N, Cannata A, et al. Long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve prosjournal in the aortic position: effect of patient age[J]. J Heart Valve Dis, 2004,13(Suppl 1):S49-51.
[18] Bottio T, Rizzoli G, Thiene G, et al. Hemodynamic and clinical outcomes with the Biocor valve in the aortic position: an 8-year experience[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2004,127(6):1616-1623.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2003.10.041
[19] Bourguignon T, Bouquiaux-Stablo AL, Candolfi P, et al. Very long-term outcomes of the carpentier-edwards perimount valve in aortic position[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2015,99(3):831-837.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.09.030 pmid: 25583467
[20] Celiento M, Ravenni G, Tomei L, et al. Excellent durability of the Mosaic porcine aortic bioprosjournal at extended follow up[J]. J Heart Valve Dis, 2018,27(1):97-103.
pmid: 30560605
[21] Chan V, Kulik A, Tran A, et al. Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the hancock Ⅱ versus the perimount aortic bioprostheses[J]. Circulation, 2010,122(11 Suppl):S10-16.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.928085 pmid: 20837899
[22] Christ T, Grubitzsch H, Claus B, et al. Long-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement with Edwards Prima Plus stentless bioprostheses in patients younger than 60 years of age[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2014,147(1):264-269.
[23] Corbineau H, Verhoye JP, Tauran A, et al. Medtronic intact porcine bioprosjournal in the aortic position: 13-year results[J]. J Heart Valve Dis, 2002,11(4):537-542.
pmid: 12150303
[24] David TE, Armstrong S, Maganti M. Hancock Ⅱ bioprosjournal for aortic valve replacement: The gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability?[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2010,90(3):775-781.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.05.034
[25] David TE, Feindel CM, Bos J, et al. Aortic valve replacement with Toronto SPV bioprosjournal: optimal patient survival but suboptimal valve durability[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2008,135(1):19-24.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.04.068
[26] de la Fuente A, Sanchez R, Imizcoz A, et al. Intact Medtronic and Carpentier Edwards S.A.V.: clinical and hemodynamic outcomes over 13 years[J]. Cardiovasc Surg, 2003,11(2):139-144.
doi: 10.1016/S0967-2109(03)00010-3
[27] Dellgren G, Eriksson MJ, Brodin LÅ, et al. Eleven years’ experience with the Biocor stentless aortic bioprosjournal: Clinical and hemodynamic follow-up with long-term relative survival rate[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2002,22(6):912-921.
doi: 10.1016/s1010-7940(02)00584-5 pmid: 12467813
[28] Desai ND, Merin O, Cohen GN, et al. Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with the St. Jude Toronto stentless porcine valve[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2004,78(6):2076-2083.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.05.061
[29] Flameng W, Meuris B, Herijgers P, et al. Prosjournal-patient mismatch is not clinically relevant in aortic valve replacement using the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2006,82(2):530-536.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.03.089 pmid: 16863756
[30] Forcillo J, Pellerin M, Perrault LP, et al. Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position: 25-years experience[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2013,96(2):486-493.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.03.032
[31] Gansera B, Hapfelmeier A, Brandl K, et al. The Mosaic bioprosjournal in the aortic position: 17 years’ results[J]. Thorac Cardiov Surg, 2014,62(1):26-34.
doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1345724
[32] Gao G, Wu Y, Grunkemeier GL, et al. Durability of pericardial versus porcine aortic valves[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004,44(2):384-388.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2004.01.053 pmid: 15261935
[33] Glaser N, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Late survival after aortic valve replacement with the perimount versus the Mosaic bioprosjournal[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2014,97(4):1314-1320.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.10.078
[34] Grunkemeier GL, Furnary AP, Wu Y, et al. Durability of pericardial versus porcine bioprosthetic heart valves[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2012,144(6):1381-1386.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.08.060
[35] Guenzinger R, Fiegl K, Wottke M, et al. Twenty-seven-year experience with the St. Jude medical biocor bioprosjournal in the aortic position[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2015,100(6):2220-2226.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.06.027 pmid: 26421496
[36] Jamieson WR, Lemieux MD, Sullivan JA, et al. Medtronic intact porcine bioprosjournal experience to twelve years[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2001,71(5 Suppl):S278-281.
doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(01)02548-6 pmid: 11388204
[37] Jamieson WRE, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, et al. Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosjournal: Clinical perfor-mance over 20 years[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2005,130(4):994-1000.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.03.040
[38] Jamieson WRE, Koerfer R, Yankah CA, et al. Mitroflow aortic pericardial bioprosjournal—clinical performance[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2009,36(5):818-824.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.05.020 pmid: 19700338
[39] Johnston DR, Soltesz EG, Vakil N, et al. Long-term durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves: implications from 12569 implants[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2015,99(4):1239-1247.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.10.070 pmid: 25662439
[40] Kurlansky PA, Williams DB, Traad EA, et al. Surgical management of aortic valve disease in elderly patients with and without coronary artery disease: influence on quality of life[J]. J Cardiovasc Surg, 2007,48(2):215-226.
[41] Lootens L, Verbeke J, Martens T, et al. Ten-year results of aortic valve replacement with first-generation Mitroflow bioprosjournal: Is early degeneration a structural or a technical issue?[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2017,52(2):272-278.
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx117 pmid: 28430883
[42] Luciani GB, Santini F, Auriemma S, et al. Long-term results after aortic valve replacement with the Biocor PSB stentless xenograft in the elderly[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2001,71(5 Suppl):S306-310.
doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(01)02525-5 pmid: 11388211
[43] McClure RS, McGurk S, Cevasco M, et al. Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: a propensity-matched analysis[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2014,148(5):1931-1939.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.12.042
[44] Minakata K, Tanaka S, Okawa Y, et al. Long-term outcome of the carpentier-edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position in Japanese patients[J]. Circ J, 2014,78(4):882-889.
doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-13-1068
[45] Minami K, Zittermann A, Schulte-Eistrup S, et al. Mitroflow synergy prostheses for aortic valve replacement: 19 years expe-rience with 1,516 patients[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2005,80(5):1699-1705.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.04.053 pmid: 16242441
[46] Mohammadi S, Kalavrouziotis D, Voisine P, et al. Bioprosthetic valve durability after stentless aortic valve replacement: the effect of implantation technique[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2014,97(6):2011-2018.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.02.040
[47] Mykén PSU, Bech-Hansen O. A 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosjournal[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2009,137(1):76-81.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.05.068
[48] Nishida T, Sonoda H, Oishi Y, et al. Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with mechanical prosjournal or carpentier-edwards perimount bioprosjournal in Japanese patients according to age[J]. Circ J, 2014,78(11):2688-2695.
doi: 10.1253/circj.CJ-14-0466
[49] Pavoni D, Badano LP, Ius F, et al. Limited long-term durability of the Cryolife O’Brien stentless porcine xenograft valve[J]. Circulation, 2007,116(11 Suppl):I307-313.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.688564 pmid: 17846322
[50] Kappetein AP, Puvimanasinghe JPA, Takkenberg JJM, et al. Predicted patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with Medtro-nic Stentless Freestyle bioprostheses[J]. J Heart Valve Dis, 2007,16(4):423-429.
pmid: 17702369
[51] Repossini A, Fischlein T, Santarpino G, et al. Pericardial stentless valve for aortic valve replacement: long-term results[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2016,102(6):1956-1965.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.05.080 pmid: 27544291
[52] Riess FC, Fradet G, Lavoie A, et al. Long-term outcomes of the Mosaic bioprosjournal[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2018,105(3):7763-7769.
[53] Rizzoli G, Mirone S, Ius P, et al. Fifteen-year results with the Hancock Ⅱ valve: A multicenter experience [J]. J Thorac Car-diov Sur, 2006, 132(3): 602-609.e4.
[54] Ruggieri VG, Flecher E, Anselmi A, et al. Long-term results of the carpentier-edwards supraannular aortic valve prosjournal[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2012,94(4):1191-1197.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.05.003
[55] Sjögren J, Gudbjartsson T, Thulin LI. Long-term outcome of the mitroflow pericardial bioprosjournal in the elderly after aortic valve replacement[J]. J Heart Valve Dis, 2006,15(2):197-202.
pmid: 16607900
[56] Sponga S, Barbera MD, Pavoni D, et al. Ten-year results of the Freedom Solo stentless heart valve: excellent haemodynamics but progressive valve dysfunction in the long term[J]. Interact Cardiov Th, 2017,24(5):663-669.
[57] Stanger O, Bleuel I, Gisler F, et al. The Freedom Solo pericardial stentless valve: Single-center experience, outcomes, and long-term durability[J]. J Thorac Cardiov Sur, 2015,150(1):70-77.
doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.01.060
[58] Wang Y, Chen S, Shi J, et al. Mid- to long-term outcome comparison of the Medtronic Hancock Ⅱ and bi-leaflet mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age: a propensity-matched analysis[J]. Interact Cardiov Th, 2016,22(3):280-286.
[59] Webb J, Parkin D, Tøndel K, et al. A comparison of early redo surgery rates in Mosaic porcine and Perimount bovine pericardial valves[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2018,54(4):724-728.
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy113 pmid: 29579171
[60] Wilbring M, Alexiou K, Schumann E, et al. Isolated aortic valve replacement in patients with small aortic annulus-a high-risk group on long-term follow-up[J]. Thorac Cardiov Surg, 2013,61(5):379-385.
doi: 10.1055/s-00000085
[61] Zibdeh O, Bugg I, Patel S, et al. Randomized trial of the Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular prosjournal versus the Medtronic Mosaic aortic prosjournal: 10-year results[J]. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, 2018,54(2):281-287.
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezx512 pmid: 29401266
[62] Head SJ, Celik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthe-tic aortic valve replacement[J]. Eur Heart J, 2017,38(28):2183-2191.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx141 pmid: 28444168
[63] Rodriguez-Gabella T, Voisine P, Puri R, et al. Aortic bioprosthetic valve durability: incidence, mechanisms, predictors, and management of surgical and transcatheter valve degeneration[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2017,70(8):1013-1028.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.715 pmid: 28818190
[64] Schoen FJ, Levy RJ. Calcification of tissue heart valve substitutes: progress toward understanding and prevention[J]. Ann Thorac Surg, 2005,79(3):1072-1080.
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.06.033 pmid: 15734452
[65] Siddiqui RF, Abraham JR, Butany J. Bioprosthetic heart valves: modes of failure[J]. Histopathology, 2009,55(2):135-144.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2008.03190.x pmid: 19694820
[66] Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease[J]. Eur Heart J, 2017,38(36):2739-2791.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391 pmid: 28886619
[67] Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines[J]. J Am Coll Cardiol, 2017,70(2):252-289.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.03.011 pmid: 28315732
[68] Leon MB, Smith CR, Mack MJ, et al. Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients[J]. N Engl J Med, 2016,374(17):1609-1620.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1514616 pmid: 27040324
[69] Mack MJ, Leon MB, Smith CR, et al. 5-year outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgical aortic valve replacement for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis (PARTNER 1): a randomised controlled trial[J]. Lancet, 2015,385(9986):2477-2484.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60308-7 pmid: 25788234
[70] Reardon MJ, van Mieghem NM, Popma JJ, et al. Surgical or transcatheter aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients[J]. N Engl J Med, 2017,376(14):1321-1331.
pmid: 28304219
[71] Karangelis D, Mazine A, Roubelakis A, et al. What is the role of sutureless aortic valves in today’s armamentarium?[J]. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther, 2017,15(2):83-91.
doi: 10.1080/14779072.2017.1273108 pmid: 27977305
[1] Ya-nan ZHAO,Hui-yun FAN,Xiang-yu WANG,Ya-nan LUO,Rong ZHANG,Xiao-ying ZHENG. Early death and causes of death of patients with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(2): 375-383.
[2] YUAN Chang-wei,WANG Ying-jin,ZHANG Shu-jie,SHEN Sheng-li,DUAN Hong-zhou. Clinical outcomes following microsurgery and endovascular embolization in the management of spinal dural arteriovenous fistula: A meta-analysis study [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(2): 304-314.
[3] FENG Jing-nan,GAO Le,SUN Yi-xin,YANG Ji-chun,DENG Si-wei,SUN Feng,ZHAN Si-yan. Accuracy of Xpert®MTB/RIF for the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin-resistance tuberculosis in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 320-326.
[4] Le GAO,Shu-qing YU,Ji-chun YANG,Jun-ling MA,Si-yan ZHAN,Feng SUN. Quality assessment of global guidelines on colorectal cancer screening [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(3): 548-555.
[5] Yi-ran ZHANG,Feng RAO,Wei PI,Pei-xun ZHANG,Bao-guo JIANG. Proximal femoral nails antirotation and dynamic hip screws for fixation of unstable intertrochanteric fractures of femur: A meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2019, 51(3): 493-500.
[6] Shuang LIU,Yu-long GUO,Jing-yi YANG,Wei WANG,Jian XU. Efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells on systemic lupus erythematosus:a meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2018, 50(6): 1014-1021.
[7] SHI Hui-feng, ZHANG Jing-xu, ZHANG Rong, WANG Xiao-li. Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in children aged 0-6 years in China: a meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2017, 49(5): 798-806.
[8] MA Yan-yan, ZHANG Jing-jing, GAO Xue-mei. Treatment outcome evaluation of different mandibular advancements using oral appliance to treat obstructive sleep apnea and hyponea syndrome: a systematic review [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2017, 49(4): 691-699.
[9] LI Zhi-xia, WU Shan-shan, YANG Zhi-rong, ZHAN Si-yan, SUN Feng. Impact of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on nasopharyngitis and upper respiratory tract infection among patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2016, 48(3): 454-459.
[10] HUANG Yuan-Sheng, YANG Zhi-Rong, ZHAN Si-Yan. Comparison of simple pooling and bivariate model used in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy published in Chinese journals [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2015, 47(3): 483-488.
[11] LIU Da-Jin, FENG Meng-Xian, LIU Min. Primary drug resistance of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)among the treatment-naive individuals with HIV in China: a meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2015, 47(3): 474-482.
[12] WU Shan-Shan, ZHANG Yue-Lun, WANG Wei-Wei, CHEN Ru, SUN Feng, ZHAN Si-Yan- . Liver injury associated with treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a syste-matic review and metaanalysis [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2014, 46(3): 417-423.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd