Abstract
Biological valves are the most commonly used prostheses for aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery in the UK. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to compare 10-year outcomes of Perimount Magna and Mitroflow bioprosthesis implanted in a single center. The medical records of patients undergoing AVR in Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital between 1999 and 2014 were examined. All data were collected retrospectively, and a propensity match analysis was performed with a ratio 3:1 to analyze 10-year outcomes. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality rates and aortic valve reintervention rates. A total of 2608 patients were included; Mitroflow bioprosthesis was used in 352 patients while Perimount Magna was used in 2256 patients. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) follow-up for the entire data set was 6.95 (4.99, 9.69) years. After 10 years, the all-cause mortality rate was higher in Mitroflow cohort 34.8% vs 14.7% (P < .001). A higher rate of aortic valve reintervention was observed in the Mitroflow cohort (4.7% vs 1%, P < .001). There were significant differences in survival and reintervention-free survival rate between the two groups considered. The implant of the Perimount Magna valve seems to have a better short-term and long-term outcome over Mitroflow valve. Such results require larger studies to be validated.
Published Version
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 call