Another valve comparison study.

Valve Replacement Forums

Help Support Valve Replacement Forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
G

Guest

A group in Germany published this in the latest edition of heart. I cut some of it out because they sounded like they were funded by a company making the valves ie the tissue valve should be chosen with caution ..." I put in the results but their comments sounded like they were "spinning" the results.

They compared St. Jude mechanical valves with stentless bioprosthetic valves in people over 65 years of age.

No significant differences were found between patients receiving stentless biological valves and patients receiving mechanical prostheses. However, analysis of subgroups showed that patients older than 75 years with mechanical valves had an increased risk of major bleeding events (p = 0.007). Patients requiring anticoagulation by means of coumarin had a twofold increased risk of an impaired emotional reaction (p = 0.052). However, for patients who received a mechanical valve for severe combined aortic valve disease a survival advantage (p = 0.045) and a decreased risk of prolonged ventilation (p = 0.001) was observed. On the other hand, patients receiving a stentless bioprosthesis had an increased risk of a prolonged stay in intensive care (p = 0.04) and stroke (p = 0.01) if they had severely reduced cardiac function (NYHA class IV). The red sentence sounds like spin also.
 
It was a fairly long period of time. I don't think that it is a complete throwaway. The results seem valid, it is just that I disagree with their interpretations of the results. The rates of adverse reactions are likely valid.
 
Back
Top