Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/31747
Type
ArticleCopyright
Restricted access
Collections
- INI - Artigos de Periódicos [3460]
Metadata
Show full item record
EFFICACY OF CARPENTIER-EDWARDS PERICARDIAL PROSTHESES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Author
Affilliation
Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Nacional de Infectologia Evandro Chagas. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Instituto Nacional de Cardiologia. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.
Abstract
Objectives: The Carpentier-Edwards pericardial (CEP) prostheses are the type of bioprostheses most used worldwide. Although they were designed to minimize the rate of valve deterioration and reoperation, their clinical superiority over other prostheses models still lacks confirmation. The objective of this study was to evaluate its effectiveness. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Lilacs databases. Operative mortality, overall mortality and reoperation rates
after heart valve surgery were compared between the use of CEP and other cardiac prostheses. Two independent reviewers screened studies for inclusion and extracted the data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The GRADE criterion was used to assess the evidence quality. Results: A total of twenty-eight studies were selected, including 19,615 individuals. The studies presented a high heterogeneity and low quality of evidence what limited the reliability of the results. The pooled data from the selected studies did not demonstrate significant differences between CEP and porcine, pericardial or stentless prostheses regarding
operative mortality, overall mortality and reoperation rates. However, the pooled data from 3 observational trials pointed out a higher risk for reoperation after valve replacement using CEP prostheses against mechanical prostheses (OR 4.92 [95 percent confidence interval 2.43–9.96]). Conclusions: The current data present in the literature still does not support a clinical advantage for the use of CEP prostheses over other bioprostheses. The quality of the studies in the literature is limited and further studies are needed to address if CEP prostheses will have a clinical advantage over other prostheses.
Share