Hammermeister K E, Sethi G K, Henderson W G, Oprian C, Kim T, Rahimtoola S
Cardiology Section, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Denver, CO 80220.
N Engl J Med. 1993 May 6;328(18):1289-96. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199305063281801.
Mechanical heart valves are durable but thrombogenic, and their use requires that the patient receive anticoagulants. In contrast, bioprosthetic valves are less thrombogenic, but they have limited durability because of tissue deterioration.
To compare the outcomes of patients who receive these two types of valves, we randomly assigned 575 men scheduled to undergo aortic-valve or mitral-valve replacement to receive either a mechanical or a bioprosthetic valve. The primary end points were death from any cause and any valve-related complication.
During an average follow-up of 11 years, there was no difference between the two groups in the probability of death from any cause (11-year probability for mechanical valves, 0.57; for bioprostheses, 0.62; P = 0.57) or in the probability of any valve-related complication (0.65 and 0.69, respectively; P = 0.39). There was a much higher rate of structural valve failure among patients who received bioprosthetic valves (11-year probability, 0.15 for the aortic valves and 0.36 for the mitral valves) than among those who received mechanical valves (no valve failures; P < 0.001). However, this difference was offset by a higher rate of bleeding complications among patients with mechanical valves than among those with bioprosthetic valves (11-year probability, 0.42 and 0.26, respectively; P < 0.001) and by a greater frequency of peri-prosthetic valvular regurgitation among patients with mechanical mitral valves than among those with mitral bioprostheses (11-year probability, 0.17 and 0.09, respectively; P = 0.05).
After 11 years, the rates of survival and freedom from all valve-related complications were similar for patients who received mechanical heart valves and those who received bioprosthetic heart valves. However, structural failure was observed only with the bioprosthetic valves, whereas bleeding complications were more frequent among patients who received mechanical valves.
机械心脏瓣膜耐用但具有血栓形成性,使用时患者需要接受抗凝治疗。相比之下,生物人工瓣膜血栓形成性较低,但由于组织退化,其耐用性有限。
为比较接受这两种瓣膜的患者的结局,我们将575名计划接受主动脉瓣或二尖瓣置换术的男性随机分为两组,分别接受机械瓣膜或生物人工瓣膜。主要终点是任何原因导致的死亡和任何与瓣膜相关的并发症。
在平均11年的随访期间,两组在任何原因导致的死亡概率(机械瓣膜11年概率为0.57;生物人工瓣膜为0.62;P = 0.57)或任何与瓣膜相关并发症的概率(分别为0.65和0.69;P = 0.39)方面没有差异。接受生物人工瓣膜的患者中结构性瓣膜失效的发生率(主动脉瓣11年概率为0.15,二尖瓣为0.36)远高于接受机械瓣膜的患者(无瓣膜失效;P < 0.001)。然而,这种差异被机械瓣膜患者中出血并发症发生率高于生物人工瓣膜患者(11年概率分别为0.42和0.26;P < 0.001)以及机械二尖瓣患者中人工瓣膜周反流频率高于二尖瓣生物人工瓣膜患者(11年概率分别为0.17和0.09;P = 0.05)所抵消。
11年后,接受机械心脏瓣膜和接受生物人工心脏瓣膜的患者的生存率和无所有与瓣膜相关并发症的发生率相似。然而,仅在生物人工瓣膜中观察到结构性失效,而接受机械瓣膜的患者出血并发症更频繁。