Background
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and long‐term survival in patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves.
Methods
Patients aged 50–69 years who had undergone AVR from 2002 to 2018 were identified and their characteristics were collected from Korean National Health Information Database formed by the National Health Insurance Service, Republic of Korea. Of the 5792 patients, 1060 patients were excluded due to missing values on characteristics. Of the 4732 study patients, 1945 patients (41.1%) had received bioprosthetic valves (Group B) and 2787 patients (58.9%) had received mechanical valves (Group M). A propensity score‐matched analysis was performed to match 1429 patients in each group. Data on mortality, cardiac mortality, reoperations, cerebrovascular accidents, and bleeding complications were obtained.
Results
The overall survival rates at 5 and 10 years postoperatively were 87.8% and 75.2% in the matched Group B and 91.2% and 76.7% in the matched Group M, respectively (p = .140). Freedom from cardiac death rates at postoperative 5 and 10 years were 95.6% and 92.4% in the matched Group B and 96.0% and 92.1% in the matched Group M, respectively (p = .540). The cumulative incidence of reoperation was higher in the matched Group B than in the matched Group M (p = .007), and the cumulative incidence of major bleeding was higher in the matched Group M than in the matched Group B (p = .039).
Conclusion
In patients aged 50–69 years who underwent isolated AVR, the patients who received bioprosthetic valves showed similar cardiac mortality‐free survival and long‐term survival rates to the patients who received mechanical valves.
(1) Background: Most factors that predict the in-hospital survival rate in patients with severe trauma are patient-related factors; environmental factors are not currently considered important. Predicting the severity of trauma using environmental factors could be a reliable and easy-to-use method. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine whether environmental factors affect the survival in patients with severe trauma. (2) Methods: Medical records of patients who activated trauma team in the single regional trauma center, from 2016 to 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. After exclusion of young patients (<19 years old), cases of mild trauma (ISS < 16), and non-preventable deaths (trauma and injury severity score <25%), a total of 1706 patients were included in the study. (3) Results: In the Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, older age, night compared with day, and high rainfall were identified as statistically significant environmental predictors of mortality due to severe trauma. The relationship between mortality and precipitation showed a linear relationship, while that between mortality and temperature showed an inverted U-shaped relationship. (4) Conclusions: Various environmental factors of trauma affect mortality in patients with severe trauma. In predicting the survival of patients with severe trauma, environmental factors are considered relatively less important, though they can be used effectively.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.