Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves in chronic dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

Background:Many patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have valvular heart disease requiring surgery. The optimal prosthetic valve is not established in this population. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess outcomes of patients with dialysis-dependent ESKD who received mechanical or bioprosthetic valves.Methods:We searched Cochrane Central, Medline and Embase from inception to January 2020. We performed screening, full-text assessment, risk of bias and data collection, independently and in duplicate. Data were pooled using a random-effects model.Results:We identified 28 observational studies (n = 9857 patients, including 6680 with mechanical valves and 3717 with bioprosthetic valves) with a median follow-up of 3.45 years. Twenty-two studies were at high risk of bias and 1 was at critical risk of bias from confounding. Certainty in evidence was very low for all outcomes except bleeding. Mechanical valves were associated with reduced mortality at 30 days (relative risk [RR] 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.97, I2 = 0, absolute effect 27 fewer deaths per 1000) and at 6 or more years (mean 9.7 yr, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72–0.96, I2 = 79%, absolute effect 145 fewer deaths per 1000), but increased bleeding (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.46, 95% CI 1.41–4.27, I2 = 59%, absolute effect 91 more events per 1000) and stroke (IRR 1.63, 95% CI 1.21–2.20, I2 = 0%, absolute effect 25 more events per 1000).Conclusion:Mechanical valves were associated with reduced mortality, but increased rate of bleeding and stroke. Given very low certainty for evidence of mortality and stroke outcomes, patients and clinicians may choose prosthetic valves based on factors such as bleeding risk and valve longevity.Study registration:PROSPERO no. CRD42017081863