Mostrar registro simples

dc.contributor.authorRibeiro, Angela Henrique Silvapt_BR
dc.contributor.authorWender, Orlando Carlos Belmontept_BR
dc.contributor.authorAlmeida, Adriana Silveira dept_BR
dc.contributor.authorSoares, Luciana Eltzpt_BR
dc.contributor.authorPicon, Paulo Dornellespt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-19T02:40:23Zpt_BR
dc.date.issued2014pt_BR
dc.identifier.issn1471-2261pt_BR
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10183/129942pt_BR
dc.description.abstractBackground: The choice of prosthesis for mitral valve replacement still remains controversial. This study assessed mortality, bleeding events and reoperation in patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery with biological or mechanical substitutes. Methods: A total of 352 patients who underwent mitral valve replacement surgery between 1990 and 2008 with 5 to 23 years of follow-up were retrospectively evaluated in a cohort study. Results: The 5, 10, 15 and 20 year survival rates after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 87.7%, 74.2%, 69.3% and 69.3%, respectively, while after surgery with a biological substitute, they were 87.6%, 71.0%, 64.2% and 56.6%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.38). In the multivariate analysis, the factors associated with death were age, bleeding events and renal failure. The probabilities of remaining free of reoperation at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 94.4%, 92.7%, 92.7% and 92.7%; after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 95.9%, 86.4%, 81.2% and 76.5%, respectively (p = 0.073). There was a significantly higher incidence of reoperation for the bioprosthetic valve replacement group (p = 0.008). The probabilities of remaining free of bleeding events at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years after surgery using a mechanical substitute were 95.0%, 91.0%, 89.6% and 89.6%, respectively, while after surgery with a bioprosthesis, they were 96.9%, 94.0%, 94.0% and 94.0%, (p = 0.267). Conclusions: The authors concluded that: 1) mortality during follow-up was statistically similar for both groups; 2) there was a greater tendency to reoperation in the bioprosthesis group; 3) the probability of remaining free from reoperation remained unchanged after 10 years’ follow-up for patients with mechanical substitute valves; 4) the probability of remaining fee from bleeding events remained unchanged after 10 years’ follow-up for patients given bioprostheses; 5) the baseline characteristics of patients were the greatest determinants of later mortality after surgery; 6) the type of prosthesis was not an independent predictive factor of any of the outcomes tested in the multivariate analysis.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfpt_BR
dc.language.isoengpt_BR
dc.relation.ispartofBMC cardiovascular disorders. London. Vol. 14 (2014), 146, 6 p.pt_BR
dc.rightsOpen Accessen
dc.subjectValva mitralpt_BR
dc.subjectMitral valve surgeryen
dc.subjectMitral prosthesisen
dc.subjectCirurgia geralpt_BR
dc.subjectBioprosthesesen
dc.subjectPróteses e implantespt_BR
dc.subjectMechanical prosthesesen
dc.subjectMortalidadept_BR
dc.subjectPredictorsen
dc.subjectMortalityen
dc.titleComparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes : a 20 years cohortpt_BR
dc.typeArtigo de periódicopt_BR
dc.identifier.nrb000954079pt_BR
dc.type.originEstrangeiropt_BR


Thumbnail
   

Este item está licenciado na Creative Commons License

Mostrar registro simples