Comparison of Biological and Mechanical Prostheses for Heart Valve Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia. 2019;(0) DOI 10.5935/abc.20180272

 

Journal Homepage

Journal Title: Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia

ISSN: 0066-782X (Print); 1678-4170 (Online)

Publisher: Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia (SBC)

Society/Institution: Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia

LCC Subject Category: Medicine: Internal medicine: Specialties of internal medicine: Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system

Country of publisher: Brazil

Language of fulltext: Portuguese, English

Full-text formats available: PDF, HTML, XML

 

AUTHORS


Alberto Takeshi Kiyose

Erica Aranha Suzumura

Lígia Laranjeira

Anna Maria Buehler

José Amalth Espírito Santo

Otavio Berwanger

Antonio Carlos de Camargo Carvalho

Angelo Amato de Paola

Valdir Ambrósio Moises

Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti

EDITORIAL INFORMATION

Peer review

Editorial Board

Instructions for authors

Time From Submission to Publication: 10 weeks

 

Abstract | Full Text

Abstract Background: The choice of a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) for patients with valvular heart disease undergoing replacement is still not a consensus. Objective: We aimed to determine the clinical outcomes of MP or BP placement in those patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared biological prostheses and mechanical prostheses in patients with valvular heart diseases and assessed the outcomes. RCTs were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science (from inception to November 2014) databases. Meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance with random effects models. The GRADE system was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A P-value lower than 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of four RCTs were included in the meta-analyses (1,528 patients) with follow up ranging from 2 to 20 years. Three used old generation mechanical and biological prostheses, and one used contemporary prostheses. No significant difference in mortality was found between BP and MP patients (risk ratio (RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.99-1.15). The risk of bleeding was significantly lower in BP patients than MP patients (RR = 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.78); however, reoperations were significantly more frequent in BP patients (RR = 3.60; 95% CI 2.44-5.32). There were no statistically significant differences between BP and MP patients with respect to systemic arterial embolisms and infective endocarditis (RR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.66-1.31, RR = 1.21; CI95% 0.78-1.88, respectively). Results in the trials with modern and old prostheses were similar. Conclusions: The mortality rate and the risk of thromboembolic events and endocarditis were similar between BP and MP patients. The risk of bleeding was approximately one third lower for BP patients than for MP patients, while the risk of reoperations was more than three times higher for BP patients.