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.
Highlights
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious disease associated with a relevant in-hospital mortality ranging between 15% and 20% as well as a 1-year mortality approaching 40% [1]
Prosthetic valve endocarditis is associated with a higher incidence of annular abscess, extensive annular infection, and large tissue destruction, which can lead to higher in-hospital and long-term mortality compared to native valve endocarditis [7]
The search strategy identified a total of 1927 titles and abstracts, of which 37 fulltext articles were evaluated for the meta-analysis
Summary
Infective endocarditis (IE) is a serious disease associated with a relevant in-hospital mortality ranging between 15% and 20% as well as a 1-year mortality approaching 40% [1]. Some reports have compared the early and long-term outcomes of patients who received a mechanical or a biological prosthesis; the results are conflicting and controversial. Long-term outcomes of patients with infective endocarditis (IE) who received either a mechanical (MP) or biological prosthesis (BP) are conflicting. 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). 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
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
