| 1. |
- Glaser, Natalie
(författare)
-
Prosthetic aortic heart valves
- 2018
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) can be performed with different types of valve prostheses. There is no perfect aortic valve prosthesis, and the prosthetic choice for each patient requires careful consideration. This thesis evaluates mortality, morbidity, and prosthetic valve function after AVR with different aortic valve prostheses. Methods and Results: Study I: We studied all-cause mortality and postoperative outcomes in all 1219 patients who underwent AVR at Karolinska University Hospital between 2002 and 2010 and received either Perimount (n=864; Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) or Mosaic (n=355; Medtronic, Inc., Minneapolis, MN) bioprostheses. There was no difference in all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65–1.11) or rate of aortic valve reoperation between the two groups. Severe prosthesis–patient mismatch (PPM) was more common in the Mosaic group than in the Perimount group (15% vs. 6%, p<0.001). Study II: We studied hemodynamic function and postoperative outcomes in all 355 patients who underwent AVR at Karolinska University Hospital between 2002 and 2008 and received a Mosaic bioprosthesis. The mean pressure gradient was 21.2 mmHg and 22.5 mmHg during early and late echocardiography, respectively. Moderate or severe PPM was found in 299 (84%) patients, and 46 patients had moderate or severe aortic stenosis at late echocardiography, but neither was associated with increased mortality. Study III: We studied all-cause mortality and postoperative outcomes in all 4545 patients aged 50–69 years who underwent primary, isolated AVR with biological (n=1832) or mechanical (n=2713) prostheses in Sweden between 1997 and 2013. The study population was obtained from the SWEDEHEART register. In a propensity score-matched analysis, patients with mechanical valve prostheses had better survival than patients with bioprostheses (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09–1.66, p=0.006). There was no difference in the rate of stroke, but patients with mechanical valves had a higher risk of major bleeding events and a lower risk of aortic valve reoperation than patients with bioprostheses. Study IV: We studied all-cause mortality and postoperative outcomes in all 13 102 patients with moderately reduced (n=3266), or normal (n=9836) kidney function who underwent primary AVR in Sweden between 1997 and 2013. The study population was obtained from the SWEDEHEART register. Patients with normal kidney function had better survival than patients with moderately reduced kidney function (adjusted HR 1.28, 95% CI 1.18–1.38). Patients with moderately reduced kidney function had a slightly higher risk of major bleeding events and a lower risk of aortic valve reoperation than patients with normal kidney function. Study V :We studied the incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) in all 26 580 patients who underwent AVR with biological (n=16 426) or mechanical (n=10 154) prostheses in Sweden between 1995 and 2012. The study population was obtained from the SWEDEHEART register. The incidence rate of PVE was 0.57% (95% CI 0.54–0.61) per person-year. The incidence of PVE was highest during the first year after surgery and remained stable thereafter for up to 18 years of follow-up. The risk of PVE was higher in patients with bioprostheses than in patients with mechanical valve prostheses (adjusted HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.29–1.83, p<0.001). Study VI: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating all-cause mortality after AVR in 49 190 patients who received bovine (n=32 235) versus porcine (n=16 955) bioprostheses. In total, seven articles met the inclusion criteria. The random-effects model was used to obtain pooled HR and 95% CI. The meta-analysis revealed no difference in survival between the groups (pooled HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92–1.09). Conclusions: [1] Both the Perimount and Mosaic bioprostheses are acceptable valve alternatives for AVR. [2] In patients aged 50–69 years, survival after AVR was better for those who received mechanical valve prostheses rather than bioprostheses. [3] After AVR, patients with moderately reduced kidney function have higher mortality than patients with normal kidney function. [4] After AVR, the yearly rate of PVE was 0.57%. Patients with bioprostheses had a higher risk of PVE than that of patients with mechanical valves. [5] Both bovine and porcine bioprostheses are acceptable valve choices for AVR.
|
|
| 2. |
- Persson, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
ABO blood type and risk of porcine bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration : SWEDEHEART observational cohort study
- 2019
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 9:5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective Blood type A antigen on porcine aortic bioprostheses might initiate an immune reaction leading to an increased frequency of structural valve deterioration in patients with blood type B or O. The aim was to analyse the association between ABO blood type and porcine bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration. Design Observational nationwide cohort study. Setting Swedish population-based study. Participants Adult patients (n=3417) who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement and received porcine bioprosthetic aortic valves between 1995 and 2012 from the Swedish Web system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies register. The study database was enriched with information from other national registers. Exposure The patients were categorised into type A/AB and type B/O blood groups. Primary and secondary outcome measures Primary outcome measure was aortic valve reoperation, and secondary outcomes were heart failure and all-cause mortality. We report risk estimates that account for the competing risk of death. Results In total, 3417 patients were identified: 1724 (50.5%) with blood type A/AB and 1693 (49.5%) with blood type B/O. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. The cumulative incidence of aortic valve reoperation was 3.4% (95% CI 2.5% to 4.4%) and 3.6% (95% CI 2.6% to 4.6%) in the type B/O and the A/AB group, respectively, at 15 years of follow-up (absolute risk difference: -0.2% (95% CI -1.5% to 1.2%)). There was no significantly increased risk for aortic valve reoperation in patients with blood type B/O compared with type A/AB (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.45). There was no significant difference in absolute or relative risk of heart failure or death between the groups. Conclusions We found no significant association between patient blood type and clinical manifestations of structural valve deterioration following porcine aortic valve replacement. Our findings suggest that it is safe to use porcine bioprosthetic valves without consideration of ABO blood type in the recipient.
|
|
| 3. |
- Persson, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden from 2003 to 2018
- 2022
-
Ingår i: JAMA Network Open. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2574-3805. ; 5:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance: The performance of bioprosthetic aortic valves is usually assessed in single valve models or head-to-head comparisons. National databases or registries offer the opportunity to investigate all available valve models in the population and allows for a comparative assessment of their performance. Objective: To analyze the long-term rates of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization associated with commonly used bioprosthetic aortic valves and to identify valve model groups with deviation in clinical performance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, nationwide cohort study included all adult patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery or ascending aortic surgery) in Sweden between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2018. Patients were identified from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry. Patients with concomitant valve surgery, previous cardiac surgery, and previous transcatheter valve replacement were excluded. Follow-up was complete for all participants. Data were analyzed from March 9, 2020, to October 12, 2021. Exposures: Primary surgical aortic valve replacement with the Perimount, Mosaic/Hancock, Biocor/Epic, Mitroflow/Crown, Soprano, and Trifecta valve models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of reintervention, defined as a subsequent aortic valve operation or transcatheter valve replacement. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Regression standardization and flexible parametric survival models were used to account for intergroup differences. Mean follow-up time was 7.1 years, and maximum follow-up time was 16.0 years. Results: A total of 16983 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [8.5] years; 10 685 men [62.9%]) were included in the analysis. The Perimount valve model group had the lowest and the Mitroflow/Crown valve model group had the highest cumulative incidence of reintervention. The estimated cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years was 3.6% (95% CI, 3.1%-4.2%) in the Perimount valve model group and 12.2% (95% CI, 9.8%-15.1%) in the Mitroflow/Crown valve model group. The estimated incidence of reintervention at 10 years was 9.3% (95% CI, 7.3%-11.3%) in the Soprano valve model group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study showed that the Perimount valve was the most commonly used and had the lowest incidence of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization, whereas the Mitroflow/Crown valve had the highest rates. These findings highlight the need for clinical vigilance in patients who receive either a Soprano or Mitroflow/Crown aortic bioprosthesis..
|
|
| 4. |
- Persson, Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Porcine vs Bovine Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves: Long-Term Clinical Results
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Annals of Thoracic Surgery. - : Elsevier BV. - 1552-6259 .- 0003-4975. ; 111:2, s. 529-535
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundPrevious studies have reported superior hemodynamic performance with bovine bioprosthetic aortic valves compared with porcine valves. However, conflicting results mean the long-term effect on survival is not well known. The aim of this study was to examine long-term survival, rate of aortic valve reoperations, and heart failure hospitalizations after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with porcine vs bovine bioprosthetic valves.MethodsThis was a population-based cohort study including all patients who had undergone AVR in Sweden from 1995 to 2012, with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients were identified through the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry. Baseline and outcome data were gathered from national registries. Propensity scores and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to control for intergroup differences. Analyses accounted for competing risk of death when appropriate.ResultsA total of 12,845 patients underwent AVR with porcine (n = 4198) or bovine (n = 8647) prostheses. We found a small but significant difference in mortality favoring porcine prostheses: 78% vs 76%, 47% vs 43%, and 17% vs 15% at 5, 10, and 15 years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-0.96). Porcine prostheses were associated with an increased risk of reoperation (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.98), but no difference in the risk of heart failure hospitalization. Results were similar in patients who underwent isolated AVR.ConclusionsConsistent with previous reports, we found that patients receiving porcine prostheses had a higher rate of reoperation compared with bovine prostheses. However, porcine prostheses were associated with improved long-term survival compared with bovine prostheses.
|
|
| 5. |
- Sumaila, U. Rashid, et al.
(författare)
-
WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Science. - : American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). - 0036-8075 .- 1095-9203. ; 374:6567, s. 544-544
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
