Late survival after aortic valve replacement with the perimount versus the mosaic bioprosthesis. Glaser, N., Franco-Cereceda, A., & Sartipy, U. The Annals of thoracic surgery, 97(4):1314--1320, April, 2014. doi abstract bibtex BACKGROUND: The objective was to compare late survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) versus a Mosaic bioprosthesis (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN). Secondary objectives were to compare early mortality, the rate of reoperation, and the effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on late survival. METHODS: The design was a population-based cohort study including all patients who underwent AVR with a Perimount or Mosaic bioprosthesis at our institution between 2002 and 2010. Baseline, operative characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected from patient charts and national registers. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We analyzed the unadjusted and multivariable adjusted association between valve type and late survival. RESULTS: In total, 1,219 patients received the Perimount (n=864) or the Mosaic (n=355) bioprosthesis. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 and 6.9 years, there were 193 and 177 deaths in the Perimount and Mosaic groups, respectively. The unadjusted 1-, 5-, and 8-year survival was 93%, 78%, and 63%, respectively, in the Perimount group and 92%, 80%, and 57%, respectively, in the Mosaic group (p=0.971).There was no significant association between valve choice and all-cause mortality in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.11). Freedom from aortic valve reoperation was similar between the groups. No significant association was found between severe PPM and late mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in late survival after AVR with a Perimount bioprosthesis compared with a Mosaic bioprosthesis. Even though severe PPM was more common in the Mosaic group, it did not affect the late survival or the frequency of reoperation.
@article{glaser_late_2014,
title = {Late survival after aortic valve replacement with the perimount versus the mosaic bioprosthesis},
volume = {97},
issn = {1552-6259},
doi = {10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.10.078},
abstract = {BACKGROUND: The objective was to compare late survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) versus a Mosaic bioprosthesis (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN). Secondary objectives were to compare early mortality, the rate of reoperation, and the effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on late survival.
METHODS: The design was a population-based cohort study including all patients who underwent AVR with a Perimount or Mosaic bioprosthesis at our institution between 2002 and 2010. Baseline, operative characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected from patient charts and national registers. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We analyzed the unadjusted and multivariable adjusted association between valve type and late survival.
RESULTS: In total, 1,219 patients received the Perimount (n=864) or the Mosaic (n=355) bioprosthesis. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 and 6.9 years, there were 193 and 177 deaths in the Perimount and Mosaic groups, respectively. The unadjusted 1-, 5-, and 8-year survival was 93\%, 78\%, and 63\%, respectively, in the Perimount group and 92\%, 80\%, and 57\%, respectively, in the Mosaic group (p=0.971).There was no significant association between valve choice and all-cause mortality in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95\% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.11). Freedom from aortic valve reoperation was similar between the groups. No significant association was found between severe PPM and late mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in late survival after AVR with a Perimount bioprosthesis compared with a Mosaic bioprosthesis. Even though severe PPM was more common in the Mosaic group, it did not affect the late survival or the frequency of reoperation.},
language = {eng},
number = {4},
journal = {The Annals of thoracic surgery},
author = {Glaser, Natalie and Franco-Cereceda, Anders and Sartipy, Ulrik},
month = apr,
year = {2014},
pmid = {24424017},
pages = {1314--1320}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"YerKv7iCFBeDNMmhd","bibbaseid":"glaser-francocereceda-sartipy-latesurvivalafteraorticvalvereplacementwiththeperimountversusthemosaicbioprosthesis-2014","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2017-09-09T10:01:11.231Z","title":"Late survival after aortic valve replacement with the perimount versus the mosaic bioprosthesis","author_short":["Glaser, N.","Franco-Cereceda, A.","Sartipy, U."],"year":2014,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/138800/collections/T3XNBU64/items?key=Dgo7eHao0WH1Z1bvtM1v1uJG&format=bibtex&limit=100","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Late survival after aortic valve replacement with the perimount versus the mosaic bioprosthesis","volume":"97","issn":"1552-6259","doi":"10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.10.078","abstract":"BACKGROUND: The objective was to compare late survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) versus a Mosaic bioprosthesis (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN). Secondary objectives were to compare early mortality, the rate of reoperation, and the effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on late survival. METHODS: The design was a population-based cohort study including all patients who underwent AVR with a Perimount or Mosaic bioprosthesis at our institution between 2002 and 2010. Baseline, operative characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected from patient charts and national registers. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We analyzed the unadjusted and multivariable adjusted association between valve type and late survival. RESULTS: In total, 1,219 patients received the Perimount (n=864) or the Mosaic (n=355) bioprosthesis. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 and 6.9 years, there were 193 and 177 deaths in the Perimount and Mosaic groups, respectively. The unadjusted 1-, 5-, and 8-year survival was 93%, 78%, and 63%, respectively, in the Perimount group and 92%, 80%, and 57%, respectively, in the Mosaic group (p=0.971).There was no significant association between valve choice and all-cause mortality in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.11). Freedom from aortic valve reoperation was similar between the groups. No significant association was found between severe PPM and late mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in late survival after AVR with a Perimount bioprosthesis compared with a Mosaic bioprosthesis. Even though severe PPM was more common in the Mosaic group, it did not affect the late survival or the frequency of reoperation.","language":"eng","number":"4","journal":"The Annals of thoracic surgery","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Glaser"],"firstnames":["Natalie"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Franco-Cereceda"],"firstnames":["Anders"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Sartipy"],"firstnames":["Ulrik"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"April","year":"2014","pmid":"24424017","pages":"1314--1320","bibtex":"@article{glaser_late_2014,\n\ttitle = {Late survival after aortic valve replacement with the perimount versus the mosaic bioprosthesis},\n\tvolume = {97},\n\tissn = {1552-6259},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.10.078},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: The objective was to compare late survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) versus a Mosaic bioprosthesis (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN). Secondary objectives were to compare early mortality, the rate of reoperation, and the effect of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on late survival.\nMETHODS: The design was a population-based cohort study including all patients who underwent AVR with a Perimount or Mosaic bioprosthesis at our institution between 2002 and 2010. Baseline, operative characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected from patient charts and national registers. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We analyzed the unadjusted and multivariable adjusted association between valve type and late survival.\nRESULTS: In total, 1,219 patients received the Perimount (n=864) or the Mosaic (n=355) bioprosthesis. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 and 6.9 years, there were 193 and 177 deaths in the Perimount and Mosaic groups, respectively. The unadjusted 1-, 5-, and 8-year survival was 93\\%, 78\\%, and 63\\%, respectively, in the Perimount group and 92\\%, 80\\%, and 57\\%, respectively, in the Mosaic group (p=0.971).There was no significant association between valve choice and all-cause mortality in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95\\% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.11). Freedom from aortic valve reoperation was similar between the groups. No significant association was found between severe PPM and late mortality.\nCONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in late survival after AVR with a Perimount bioprosthesis compared with a Mosaic bioprosthesis. Even though severe PPM was more common in the Mosaic group, it did not affect the late survival or the frequency of reoperation.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\tjournal = {The Annals of thoracic surgery},\n\tauthor = {Glaser, Natalie and Franco-Cereceda, Anders and Sartipy, Ulrik},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tpmid = {24424017},\n\tpages = {1314--1320}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Glaser, N.","Franco-Cereceda, A.","Sartipy, U."],"key":"glaser_late_2014","id":"glaser_late_2014","bibbaseid":"glaser-francocereceda-sartipy-latesurvivalafteraorticvalvereplacementwiththeperimountversusthemosaicbioprosthesis-2014","role":"author","urls":{},"downloads":0},"search_terms":["late","survival","aortic","valve","replacement","perimount","versus","mosaic","bioprosthesis","glaser","franco-cereceda","sartipy"],"keywords":[],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["ZtuEJfqHnCQNPwXoW"]}