Homograft versus Conventional Prosthesis for Surgical Management of Aortic Valve Infective Endocarditis

Author:

Yanagawa Bobby1,Mazine Amine1,Tam Derrick Y.1,Jüni Peter23,Bhatt Deepak L.4,Spindel Stephen5,Puskas John D.5,Verma Subodh1,Friedrich Jan O.36

Affiliation:

1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada

2. Applied Health Research Centre, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada

3. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada

4. Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA USA

5. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY USA

6. Department of Critical Care and Medicine, St Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON Canada.

Abstract

Objective Surgical management of aortic valve infective endocarditis (IE) with cryopreserved homograft has been associated with lower risk of recurrent IE, but there is equipoise with regard to the optimal prosthesis. This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare outcomes between homograft and conventional prosthesis for aortic valve IE. Methods We searched MEDLINE database to September 2017 for studies comparing homograft versus conventional prosthesis. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality, recurrent IE, and reoperation. Results There were 18 included comparative observational studies with 2232 patients (median follow up = 5 [interquartile range: 2–7] years, 30% prosthetic valve endocarditis); four studies were adjusted for baseline differences. There were no differences in perioperative mortality or stroke despite a greater proportion of staphylococcal endocarditis, abscess, and root replacements but less multivalve involvement in the homograft group. Long-term outcomes of all-cause mortality [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.81–1.31, P = 0.83, for unmatched, and IRR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.36–1.84, P = 0.63, for matched studies], recurrent endocarditis (IRR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.53–1.93, P = 0.96, for unmatched, and IRR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.49–2.19, P = 0.92, for matched studies), and reoperation (IRR = 1.60, 95% CI = 0.80–3.21, P = 0.18, for unmatched, and IRR = 3.17, 95% CI = 0.52–19.44, P = 0.21, for matched studies) were not different comparing homograft versus conventional prosthesis. There was a significantly increased need for reoperation with homograft versus mechanical prosthetic valves, but this comparison was based on limited data. Conclusions Homografts and conventional prostheses offer similar survival and freedom from recurrent endocarditis and reoperation for aortic valve IE. Homografts may be associated with greater risk of reoperation compared with mechanical valves.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,General Medicine,Surgery,Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3