You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 98, Issue 2
  • Heart valve prosthesis selection in patients with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
Heart valve prosthesis selection in patients with end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Andreas Böning1,
  2. Martin Brück2
  1. 1Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Giessen, Germany
  2. 2Department of Cardiology and Nephrology, Lahn-Dill-Kliniken, Wetzlar, Germany
  1. Correspondence to Dr Andreas Böning, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg, Rudolf-Buchheim-Strasse7, 35385 Giessen, Germany; andreas.boening{at}chiru.med.uni-giessen.de

https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2011-301295

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Sometimes, the critical reader of biomedical journals witnesses a paradigm shift in treatment recommendations. While the 1998 guidelines recommend the use of mechanical, not bioprosthetic, heart valve prostheses in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring dialysis, the 2005 revised guidelines are less prescriptive because of insufficient data, leaving open the question of the optimum choice. The meta-analysis of Chan et al1 published recently in Heart has the potential to complete the paradigm shift by influencing future guideline recommendations to favour bioprosthetic heart valves as the first choice for patients with ESRD.

    The 5-year mortality rate of patients with ESRD is approximately 65%.1 In addition, the life expectancy of a chronic dialysis patient in the seventh decade is only 3.8–4.5 years. …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.