Mechanical or biological heart valve for dialysis-dependent patients? A meta-analysis.

Kuan-Yu Chi, Ming-Hsiu Chiang, Yi-No Kang, Shao-Jung Li, Yueh-Tsung Chan, Yang-Ching Chen, Sen-Te Wang

Journal: The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 2022;163(6):2057-2071.e12

PMID: 32778466

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The optimal selection of prosthetic heart valve for dialysis-dependent patients remains controversial. We investigated the comparative effectiveness and safety of mechanical prosthesis (MP) and bioprosthesis (BP) for these patients.

METHODS

After the systematic review, we included studies that involved patients on dialysis undergoing aortic valve replacement or mitral valve replacement (MVR) and reported comparative outcomes of MP and BP. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis based on the valve position and postoperative international normalized ratio (INR), which was extracted from either tables or methods of each study. A meta-regression was used to examine the effects of study-level covariates.

RESULTS

We included 24 retrospective studies without randomized-controlled trials, involving 10,164 participants (MP = 6934, BP = 3230). Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with MP exhibited a better long-term survival effectiveness (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.86). Conversely, studies including MVR demonstrated little difference in survival (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73-1.12). A meta-regression revealed that age had little effect on long-term survival difference between MP and BP (β = -0.0135, P = .433). MP had a significantly greater bleeding risk than did BP when INR was above 2.5 (incidence rate ratio, 10.58; 95% CI, 2.02-55.41). However, when INR was below 2.5, bleeding events were comparable (incidence rate ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.78-3.82). The structural valve deterioration rate was significantly lower in MP (risk ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

MP is a reasonable choice for dialysis-dependent patients without additional thromboembolic risk requiring aortic valve replacement, for its better long-term survival, durability, and noninferior bleeding risk compared with BP. Conversely, BP might be an appropriate selection for patients with MVR, given its similar survival rate and lower bleeding risk. Although our meta-regression demonstrates little influence of age on long-term survival difference between MP and BP, further studies stratifying patients based on age cut-off are mandatory.

Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Address: Department of Education, Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.; School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.; Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Institute of Health Policy & Management, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.; Cardiovascular Research Center, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Taipei Heart Institute, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.; Department of General Medicine, Shuang Ho Hospital, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.; Department of Family Medicine, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; School of Nutrition and Health Sciences, College of Nutrition, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Graduate Institute of Metabolism and Obesity Sciences, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.; Department of Family Medicine, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan; Health Management Center, Taipei Medical University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: [email protected].
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.