Readmission After Bioprosthetic vs Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement in the United States.


Journal

The Annals of thoracic surgery
ISSN: 1552-6259
Titre abrégé: Ann Thorac Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 15030100R

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 Jul 2022
Historique:
received: 28 01 2022
revised: 17 05 2022
accepted: 25 05 2022
pubmed: 9 7 2022
medline: 9 7 2022
entrez: 8 7 2022
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Choosing between a bioprosthetic and a mechanical mitral valve is an important decision for both patients and surgeons. We compared patient outcomes and readmission rates after bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (Bio-MVR) vs mechanical mitral valve replacement (Mech-MVR). The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried to identify 31 474 patients who underwent isolated MVR (22 998 Bio-MVR, 8476 Mech-MVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Propensity score matching by age, sex, elective status, and comorbidities was used to compare outcomes between matched cohorts by prosthesis type. Freedom from readmission within the first calendar year was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared between matched cohorts. Bio-MVR patients were older (median age, 69 vs 57 years; P < .001) and had more comorbidities (median Elixhauser score, 14 vs 11; P < .001) compared with Mech-MVR patients. After propensity score matching (n = 15 549), Bio-MVR patients had similar operative mortality (3.5% vs 3.4%; P = .97) and costs ($50 958 vs $49 782; P = .16) but shorter lengths of stay (8 vs 9 days; P < .001) and fewer 30-day (16.0% vs 18.1%; P = .04) and 90-day (23.8% vs 26.8%; P = .01) readmissions compared with Mech-MVR patients. The difference in readmissions persisted at 1 year (P = .045). Readmission for bleeding or coagulopathy complications was less common with Bio-MVR (5.7% vs 10.1%; P < .001). Readmission was more common after Mech-MVR than after Bio-MVR. Identifying and closely observing patients at high risk for bleeding complications may bridge the readmissions gap between Bio-MVR and Mech-MVR.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Choosing between a bioprosthetic and a mechanical mitral valve is an important decision for both patients and surgeons. We compared patient outcomes and readmission rates after bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (Bio-MVR) vs mechanical mitral valve replacement (Mech-MVR).
METHODS METHODS
The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried to identify 31 474 patients who underwent isolated MVR (22 998 Bio-MVR, 8476 Mech-MVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Propensity score matching by age, sex, elective status, and comorbidities was used to compare outcomes between matched cohorts by prosthesis type. Freedom from readmission within the first calendar year was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared between matched cohorts.
RESULTS RESULTS
Bio-MVR patients were older (median age, 69 vs 57 years; P < .001) and had more comorbidities (median Elixhauser score, 14 vs 11; P < .001) compared with Mech-MVR patients. After propensity score matching (n = 15 549), Bio-MVR patients had similar operative mortality (3.5% vs 3.4%; P = .97) and costs ($50 958 vs $49 782; P = .16) but shorter lengths of stay (8 vs 9 days; P < .001) and fewer 30-day (16.0% vs 18.1%; P = .04) and 90-day (23.8% vs 26.8%; P = .01) readmissions compared with Mech-MVR patients. The difference in readmissions persisted at 1 year (P = .045). Readmission for bleeding or coagulopathy complications was less common with Bio-MVR (5.7% vs 10.1%; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Readmission was more common after Mech-MVR than after Bio-MVR. Identifying and closely observing patients at high risk for bleeding complications may bridge the readmissions gap between Bio-MVR and Mech-MVR.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35803331
pii: S0003-4975(22)00925-0
doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2022.05.064
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2022 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Christopher B Sylvester (CB)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Medical Scientist Training Program, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Department of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, Texas.

Christopher T Ryan (CT)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

William C Frankel (WC)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart Vascular and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.

Sainath Asokan (S)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Rodrigo Zea-Vera (R)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Qianzi Zhang (Q)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Matthew J Wall (MJ)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Joseph S Coselli (JS)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Todd K Rosengart (TK)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Subhasis Chatterjee (S)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.

Ravi K Ghanta (RK)

Division of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Michael E. DeBakey Department of Surgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Division of Adult Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Texas Heart Institute, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: ravi.ghanta@bcm.edu.

Classifications MeSH