Readmission After Bioprosthetic vs Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement in the United States

Abstract

BackgroundChoosing between a bioprosthetic and a mechanical mitral valve is an important decision for both patients and surgeons. We compared patient outcomes and readmission rates after bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (Bio-MVR) vs mechanical mitral valve replacement (Mech-MVR). MethodsThe Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried to identify 31 474 patients who underwent isolated MVR (22 998 Bio-MVR, 8476 Mech-MVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Propensity score matching by age, sex, elective status, and comorbidities was used to compare outcomes between matched cohorts by prosthesis type. Freedom from readmission within the first calendar year was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared between matched cohorts. ResultsBio-MVR patients were older (median age, 69 vs 57 years; P < .001) and had more comorbidities (median Elixhauser score, 14 vs 11; P < .001) compared with Mech-MVR patients. After propensity score matching (n = 15 549), Bio-MVR patients had similar operative mortality (3.5% vs 3.4%; P = .97) and costs ($50 958 vs $49 782; P = .16) but shorter lengths of stay (8 vs 9 days; P < .001) and fewer 30-day (16.0% vs 18.1%; P = .04) and 90-day (23.8% vs 26.8%; P = .01) readmissions compared with Mech-MVR patients. The difference in readmissions persisted at 1 year (P = .045). Readmission for bleeding or coagulopathy complications was less common with Bio-MVR (5.7% vs 10.1%; P < .001). ConclusionsReadmission was more common after Mech-MVR than after Bio-MVR. Identifying and closely observing patients at high risk for bleeding complications may bridge the readmissions gap between Bio-MVR and Mech-MVR.