Efficacy of Carpentier-Edwards pericardial prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorMagliano, Carlos Alberto S.
dc.contributor.authorSaraiva, Roberto M.
dc.contributor.authorAzevedo, Vitor Manuel P.
dc.contributor.authorInnocenzi, Adriana M.
dc.contributor.authorTura, Bernardo R.
dc.contributor.authorSantos, Marisa
dc.date.accessioned2022-09-06T16:34:12Z
dc.date.available2022-09-06T16:34:12Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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.en
dc.identifier.citationMagliano CA, Saraiva RM, Azevedo VM, Innocenzi AM, Tura BR, Santos M. Efficacy of Carpentier-Edwards pericardial prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2015;31(1-2):19-26. Doi:10.1017/S0266462315000148.
dc.identifier.otherDOI: 10.1017/S0266462315000148
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.inc.saude.gov.br/handle/123456789/217
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
dc.subjectMeta-análisept
dc.subjectRevisão sistemáticapt
dc.subjectBioprótesespt
dc.subjectPróteses Carpentier-Edwardspt
dc.subjectMeta-analysisen
dc.subjectSystematic reviewen
dc.subjectBioprosthesesen
dc.subjectCarpentier-Edwards prosthesesen
dc.subject.meshReproducibility of Resultsen
dc.subject.meshReoperation / statistics & numerical dataen
dc.subject.meshPostoperative Complications / epidemiologyen
dc.subject.meshHumansen
dc.subject.meshHeart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / mortalityen
dc.subject.meshHeart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / methodsen
dc.subject.meshHeart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / adverse effectsen
dc.subject.meshHeart Valve Prosthesisen
dc.subject.meshBioprosthesisen
dc.subject.meshAnimalsen
dc.subject.meshSwineen
dc.titleEfficacy of Carpentier-Edwards pericardial prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysisen
dc.typeArticle
Arquivos
Original bundle
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
thumbnail.default.alt
Nome:
Magliano CA et al_2015.pdf
Tamanho:
302.79 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
Baixar
License bundle
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
thumbnail.default.placeholder
Nome:
license.txt
Tamanho:
1.71 KB
Formato:
Item-specific license agreed to upon submission
Descrição:
Baixar
Coleções
Produção Bibliográfica
Produção Docente
Produção em Conjunto com Discente