Long-Term Outcome of Mechanical and Biological Prostheses in Patients with Left-Side Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
biological prosthesis
infective endocarditis
long-term outcome
mechanical prosthesis
meta-analysis
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Sep 2021
24 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
04
08
2021
revised:
20
09
2021
accepted:
22
09
2021
entrez:
13
10
2021
pubmed:
14
10
2021
medline:
14
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Long-term outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis (IE) who received either a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) are conflicting. A meta-analysis of observational studies comparing the long-term outcomes of left-side IE with the use of MP versus BP was performed. Electronic databases from January 2000 to June 2021 were screened. Studies reporting long-term mortality were analyzed. The primary endpoint was long-term overall mortality. Secondary endpoints were in-hospital/.30-day mortality and freedom from both prosthesis reinfection and reintervention. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for survival according to the random effect model. Thirteen retrospective observational studies reporting on 8645 patients (MP: 4688; BP: 4137) were included for comparison. Twelve studies reported data of long-term survival for a total of 8285 patients (MP: 4517; BP: 3768). The pooled analysis revealed that the use of MP was statistically associated with longer benefits compared to BP (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.86; In a meta-analysis of retrospective observational studies comparing the long-term outcome of patients who underwent surgery for left-sided IE, the use of MP compared to BP is associated with a significant longer-term survival and with a reduced incidence of late reoperation. The incidence of late reinfection is comparable between the two prostheses.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Long-term outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis (IE) who received either a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) are conflicting. A meta-analysis of observational studies comparing the long-term outcomes of left-side IE with the use of MP versus BP was performed.
METHODS
METHODS
Electronic databases from January 2000 to June 2021 were screened. Studies reporting long-term mortality were analyzed. The primary endpoint was long-term overall mortality. Secondary endpoints were in-hospital/.30-day mortality and freedom from both prosthesis reinfection and reintervention. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for survival according to the random effect model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirteen retrospective observational studies reporting on 8645 patients (MP: 4688; BP: 4137) were included for comparison. Twelve studies reported data of long-term survival for a total of 8285 patients (MP: 4517; BP: 3768). The pooled analysis revealed that the use of MP was statistically associated with longer benefits compared to BP (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.63-0.86;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In a meta-analysis of retrospective observational studies comparing the long-term outcome of patients who underwent surgery for left-sided IE, the use of MP compared to BP is associated with a significant longer-term survival and with a reduced incidence of late reoperation. The incidence of late reinfection is comparable between the two prostheses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34640374
pii: jcm10194356
doi: 10.3390/jcm10194356
pmc: PMC8509294
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
Circulation. 2013 Jul 23;128(4):344-51
pubmed: 23785002
Biometrics. 1994 Dec;50(4):1088-101
pubmed: 7786990
Ann Thorac Surg. 2018 Jul;106(1):99-106
pubmed: 29452115
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Nov;8(6):630-644
pubmed: 31832353
Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019 Nov;8(6):587-599
pubmed: 31832349
BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
pubmed: 9310563
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Jan 15;178:117-23
pubmed: 25464234
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017 Jun;153(6):1241-1258.e29
pubmed: 28365016
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010 Nov;38(5):528-38
pubmed: 20547069
PLoS One. 2017 Apr 13;12(4):e0174519
pubmed: 28407024
Stat Med. 1998 Dec 30;17(24):2815-34
pubmed: 9921604
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Feb 2;77(4):450-500
pubmed: 33342587
Ann Thorac Surg. 2012 Feb;93(2):480-7
pubmed: 22195976
Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
pubmed: 12111919
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jun 19;71(24):2717-2726
pubmed: 29903344
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Jan;147(1):349-54
pubmed: 23317945
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 26;10(9):
pubmed: 33925866
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Aug 28;:
pubmed: 34453161
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010 May;37(5):1025-32
pubmed: 20036573
Lancet. 2015 Mar 28;385(9974):1219-28
pubmed: 25467569
Ann Thorac Surg. 2001 Apr;71(4):1164-71
pubmed: 11308154
Stat Methods Med Res. 2018 Jun;27(6):1785-1805
pubmed: 27683581
Trials. 2007 Jun 07;8:16
pubmed: 17555582
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 May 19;:
pubmed: 34008022
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 May;151(5):1239-46, 1248.e1-2
pubmed: 26936004
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Feb 1;53(2):435-439
pubmed: 29029030
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017 Dec 5;70(22):2795-2804
pubmed: 29191329
Res Synth Methods. 2010 Apr;1(2):112-25
pubmed: 26061377
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 Feb;137(2):326-33
pubmed: 19185146
Stata J. 2017 Oct;17(4):786-802
pubmed: 29398980
Am J Cardiol. 2017 Jan 15;119(2):317-322
pubmed: 27816113
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jun 4;73(21):2647-2655
pubmed: 31146808
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021 Jan 29;59(2):434-441
pubmed: 33141188
Am J Med Sci. 2021 May 24;:
pubmed: 34033810
Eur Heart J. 2015 Nov 21;36(44):3075-3128
pubmed: 26320109
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Spring;28(1):56-9
pubmed: 27568136
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Nov 2;:
pubmed: 31864696
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12
pubmed: 19631508
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015 May 19;65(19):2070-6
pubmed: 25975469
J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Dec;49(12):1373-9
pubmed: 8970487
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019 Sep 1;29(3):386-392
pubmed: 31121026