We have located links that may give you full text access.
Impact of Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch on Survival after Mitral Valve Replacement: A Meta-analysis.
Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon 2018 October 10
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have demonstrated a negative impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on long-term clinical outcomes after aortic valve replacement. However, the impact of PPM after mitral valve replacement (MVR) on clinical outcomes is still controversial. This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of PPM on early and long-term survival after MVR.
METHODS: A literature search of five databases was performed. The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and early mortality, respectively. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the risk of bias, patients' age, proportion of female patients, and proportion of patients with mechanical MVR.
RESULTS: Eleven nonrandomized studies including 8,072 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The overall incidence of PPM was 58.0% (range: 10.4-85.9%). The odds ratio of early mortality in nine studies was not significantly different between the PPM and non-PPM patients (odds ratio: 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.86). A pooled analysis in 11 studies demonstrated that all-cause mortality after MVR was higher in the PPM than non-PPM patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.09-1.77). This analysis revealed a moderate to high heterogeneity ( I 2 = 69.4%). When pooled analyses were performed in two subgroups according to the proportion of patients with mechanical MVR, there were low heterogeneity in each group. No other subgroup analyses demonstrated a significant difference in the HR of all-cause mortality. Funnel plots and Egger's tests showed no visually and statistically significant publication bias.
CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis indicates that PPM negatively affects long-term survival after MVR.
METHODS: A literature search of five databases was performed. The primary and secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and early mortality, respectively. Subgroup analyses were performed according to the risk of bias, patients' age, proportion of female patients, and proportion of patients with mechanical MVR.
RESULTS: Eleven nonrandomized studies including 8,072 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The overall incidence of PPM was 58.0% (range: 10.4-85.9%). The odds ratio of early mortality in nine studies was not significantly different between the PPM and non-PPM patients (odds ratio: 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.86). A pooled analysis in 11 studies demonstrated that all-cause mortality after MVR was higher in the PPM than non-PPM patients (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.09-1.77). This analysis revealed a moderate to high heterogeneity ( I 2 = 69.4%). When pooled analyses were performed in two subgroups according to the proportion of patients with mechanical MVR, there were low heterogeneity in each group. No other subgroup analyses demonstrated a significant difference in the HR of all-cause mortality. Funnel plots and Egger's tests showed no visually and statistically significant publication bias.
CONCLUSION: The present meta-analysis indicates that PPM negatively affects long-term survival after MVR.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app