Dataset Information

Long-Term Outcome of Mechanical and Biological Prostheses in Patients with Left-Side Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

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

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

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; p < 0.0001). The median follow-up time ranged from 1 to 15.3 years. The pooled analysis of five studies reporting data on prosthesis reinfection in 4491 patients (MP: 2433; BP: 2058) did not reveal significant differences (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.30-1.21; p = 0.15). Five studies reported data on prosthesis reintervention in 4401 patients (MP: 2307; BP: 2094). The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in favor of MP (HR 0.40; 95% CI 0.29-0.55; p < 0.0001). Meta-regression reported no effect of male gender (p = 0.09) and age (p = 0.77) on long-term survival.

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.

SUBMITTER: Formica F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8509294 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveSurgery remains the primary form of treatment for infective endocarditis (IE). However, it is not clear what type of prosthetic valve provides a better prognosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the prognosis of infective endocarditis treated with biological valves to cases treated with mechanical valves.MethodsPubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1960 to November 2016.Randomized controlled trials, retrospective cohorts and prospective studies comparing outcomes between biological valve and mechanical valve management for infective endocarditis were analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale(NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of the literature and extracted data, and Stata 12.0 software was used for the meta-analysis.ResultsA total of 11 publications were included; 10,754 cases were selected, involving 6776 cases of biological valves and 3,978 cases of mechanical valves. The all-cause mortality risk of the biological valve group was higher than that of the mechanical valve group (HR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44, P = 0.023), as was early mortality (RR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43, P = 0.033). The recurrence of endocarditis (HR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.42, P = 0.001), as well as the risk of reoperation (HR = 1.79, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.80, P = 0.010) were more likely to occur in the biological valve group. The incidence of postoperative embolism was less in the biological valve group than in the mechanical valve group, but this difference was not statistically significant (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.07, P = 0.245). For patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), there was no significant difference in survival rates between the biological valve group and the mechanical valve group (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, P = 0.520).ConclusionThe results of our meta-analysis suggest that mechanical valves can provide a significantly better prognosis in patients with infective endocarditis. There were significant differences in the clinical features of patients receiving a biological valve compared to patients receiving a mechanical valve. A large, multicenter retrospective study included in our meta-analysis suggested that any mortality risk of the biological valve group was significant higher than that of the mechanical valve group. However, the risk was no different after risk was adjusted. So, we thought the reason for this result may be related to the characteristics of the patient rather than valve dysfunction. It is still necessary to future randomized studies to verify this conclusion.