Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
Ergebnis 22 von 2075
Journal of chest surgery, 2022-02, Vol.55 (1), p.69-76
2022
Volltextzugriff (PDF)

Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte
Titel
Bioprosthesis in the Mitral Position: Bovine Pericardial versus Porcine Xenograft
Ist Teil von
  • Journal of chest surgery, 2022-02, Vol.55 (1), p.69-76
Ort / Verlag
대한흉부외과학회
Erscheinungsjahr
2022
Quelle
Alma/SFX Local Collection
Beschreibungen/Notizen
  • Background: While the use of bioprosthetic valves for mitral valve replacement (MVR) is increasing, very few studies have compared bovine pericardial and porcine valves in the mitral position to help guide bioprosthetic selection. Methods: In the present study, patients who underwent MVR using bovine pericardial valves were compared with those who underwent MVR with porcine bioprostheses between January 1996 and July 2018. Those with prior MVR, infective endocarditis, congenital mitral valve disease, or ischemic mitral regurgitation were excluded. The primary outcomes were structural valve deterioration (SVD) and mitral valve reoperation from any cause, and death was regarded as a competing risk. Competing risk analysis and propensity score-matching were used for comparisons. Results: Among the 388 patients enrolled, pericardial and porcine bioprostheses were implanted in 217 (55.9%) and 171 (44.1%), respectively. Propensity score-matching yielded 122 pairs of patients that were well-balanced for all baseline covariates. No significant differences were observed between the groups in unadjusted (p=0.09) and adjusted overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.76; p=0.60). Competing risk analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of mitral reoperation (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.50-2.27; p=0.86) and development of SVD (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.56-4.36; p=0.39) between the groups. Matched population analysis confirmed similar results regarding reoperation (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.40-3.22; p=0.98) and SVD (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.41-4.73; p=0.60). Conclusion: No significant differences in survival or valve durability were observed between bovine pericardial and porcine bioprosthetic MVR. These findings require further validation through studies with larger sample sizes.
Sprache
Koreanisch
Identifikatoren
ISSN: 2765-1606
eISSN: 2765-1614
Titel-ID: cdi_kisti_ndsl_JAKO202216457999807
Format

Weiterführende Literatur

Empfehlungen zum selben Thema automatisch vorgeschlagen von bX