Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background There are insufficient data regarding the risk factors associated with valve dysfunction of bioprosthetic valves in the mitral position This study aimed to investigate the factors associated with bioprosthetic mitral valve (MV) dysfunction (MVD).
Methods A total of 245 patients (age 67.2±11.2 years, 74.9% women) who were followed up for more than 5 years after surgical bioprosthetic MV replacement were analysed in the setting of retrospective study design. MVD was defined as an increased mean gradient of >5 mm Hg with limited leaflet motion and/or newly developed MV regurgitation of at least moderate severity on follow-up echocardiography. The clinical outcome was defined as a composite of cardiovascular mortality, redo MV surgery or intervention and heart failure-related hospitalisations.
Results During a median of 96.0 months (IQR 67.0–125.0 months), bioprosthetic MVD occurred in 66 (27.6%) patients. Factors associated with bioprosthetic MVD detected by multivariate regression analysis were age at surgery (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 0.99, p<0.001), chronic kidney disease (HR 3.27, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.12, p<0.001), elevated mean diastolic pressure gradient >5.5 mm Hg across the bioprosthetic MV early after operation (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.08 to 3.78, p=0.028) and average haemoglobin level after surgery (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96, p=0.015). Patients with bioprosthetic MVD showed significantly poorer clinical outcomes than those without bioprosthetic MVD (log-rank p<0.001).
Conclusions Young age at operation, chronic kidney disease, elevated pressure gradient across the bioprosthetic MV early after surgery and postsurgical anaemia are associated with bioprosthetic MVD. Bioprosthetic MVD is associated with poor clinical outcomes.
- Heart Valve Prosthesis
- Risk Factors
- Echocardiography
- Mitral Valve Insufficiency
- Mitral Valve Stenosis
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Footnotes
Contributors S-YG and CYS conceived and designed the study. S-YG and K-YK collected the data. S-YG, IC and CYS analysed and interpreted the data. S-YG prepared the manuscript with input from all authors and is the guarantor for the study. S-YG and CYS had the primary responsibility for the final content. G-RH and J-WH provided intellectual input and edited the paper. CYS approved final version of the paper to be published. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.