title: Bioprosthetic versus mechanical prostheses for valve replacement in end-stage renal disease patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) indicated for dialysis are increasingly requiring cardiac valve surgery. The choice of bioprosthetic or mechanic valve prosthesis for such patients requires careful risk assessment. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess current evidence available.
  
  
  METHODS
  A comprehensive search from six electronic databases was performed from their inception to February 2015. Results from patients with ESRD undergoing cardiac surgery for bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement were identified.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Sixteen studies with 8,483 patients with ESRD undergoing cardiac valve replacement surgery were included. No evidence of publication bias was detected. Prior angioplasty by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery was significantly higher in the bioprosthetic group compared to the mechanical group (16.0% vs. 12.0%, P=0.04); all other preoperative baseline patient characteristics were similar. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or all-cause mortality between the two comparisons. Compared with the mechanical group, the frequency of bleeding (5.2% vs. 6.4%, P=0.04) and risk of thromboembolism (2.7% vs. 12.8%, P=0.02) were significantly lower in the bioprosthetic group. There were similar rates of reoperation and valve endocarditis.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The present study demonstrated that patients with ESRD undergoing bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement had similar mid-long term survival. The bioprosthetic group had lower rates of bleeding and thromboembolism. Further studies are required to differentiate the impact of valve location. The presented results may be applicable for ESRD patients requiring prosthetic valve replacement.
authors.affiliation: 1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
authors.forename: Kevin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Phan
authors.affiliation: 1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
authors.forename: Dong Fang
authors.initials: DF
authors.lastname: Zhao
authors.affiliation: 1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
authors.forename: Jessie J
authors.initials: JJ
authors.lastname: Zhou
authors.affiliation: 1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
authors.forename: Aran
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Karagaratnam
authors.affiliation: 1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
authors.forename: Steven
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Phan
authors.affiliation: 1 The Collaborative Research (CORE) Group, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia ; 2 The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
authors.forename: Tristan D
authors.initials: TD
authors.lastname: Yan
keywords: Bioprosthesis; aortic valve; dialysis; mechanical valve; mitral valve; renal failure; valve replacement