Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences) >
Safety of biological valves for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Received date: 2020-02-13
Online published: 2020-06-30
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China(71673003)
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
Bao-qi ZENG , Shu-qing YU , Yao CHEN , Wei ZHAI , Bin LIU , Si-yan ZHAN , Feng SUN . Safety of biological valves for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2020 , 52(3) : 547 -556 . DOI: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.03.023
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [27] | Dellgren G, Eriksson MJ, Brodin L?, 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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [55] | Sj?gren 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. |
| [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. |
| [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, T?ndel 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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [62] | Head SJ, Celik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthe-tic aortic valve replacement[J]. Eur Heart J, 2017,38(28):2183-2191. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [65] | Siddiqui RF, Abraham JR, Butany J. Bioprosthetic heart valves: modes of failure[J]. Histopathology, 2009,55(2):135-144. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
| [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. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |