Characteristics of clinical studies on heart valve prostheses . Summary of study characteristics of six systematic reviews on surgical aortic valve replacement identified in a health technology assessment Review Design of Numbers of Follow-up Comparison included studies and studies patients Kassai et al 2000 RCTs 3 studies (2 in Mean of 11–12 Aortic and/or adults) years for adults mitral: mechanical vs. 1,229 patients bioprosthetic (1,011 adult) Kunadian et al RCTs 11 studies NR Aortic: Stented 2007 vs. non-stented 919 patients bioprosthetic Lund and Bland, Observational 32 articles Mean 6.4 years Aortic: 2006 describing 38 for mechanical Mechanical vs. case series (range, 3.9 to bioprosthetic 10.8) and 5.3 17,439 patients years (2.6 to 10.1 for bioprosthetic) Puvimanasghe et Observational 22 studies Total follow-up Aortic: St. Jude al 2004 in patient-years mechanical vs. 13,281 patients was 25,726 for St porcine Puvimanasinghe Jude mechanical bioprosthetic et al 2003 and 54,151 for porcine bioprosthesis Puvimanasinghe Observational 13 studies 18 years for Aortic: et al 2006 6,481 patients pericardial pericardial aortic valves and up to vs. 20 years for porcine bioprosthetic supraanular valves Rizzoli et al 2004 Observational 11 studies Mean duration: Tricuspid: 6.8 years Bioprosthetic vs. 1,160 patients mechanical valves NR: not reported
Characteristics of clinical studies on heart valve prostheses . Summary of study characteristics of six systematic reviews on surgical aortic valve replacement identified in a health technology assessment Review Design of included studies Numbers of studies and patients Follow-up Comparison Kassai et al 2000 RCTs 3 studies (2 in adults) 1,229 patients (1,011 adult) Mean of 11–12 years for adults Aortic and/or mitral: mechanical vs. bioprosthetic Kunadian et al 2007 RCTs 11 studies 919 patients NR Aortic: Stented vs. non-stented bioprosthetic Lund and Bland, 2006 Observational 32 articles describing 38 case series 17,439 patients Mean 6.4 years for mechanical (range, 3.9 to 10.8) and 5.3 years (2.6 to 10.1 for bioprosthetic) Aortic: Mechanical vs. bioprosthetic Puvimanasghe et al 2004 Puvimanasinghe et al 2003 Observational 22 studies 13,281 patients Total follow-up in patient-years was 25,726 for St Jude mechanical and 54,151 for porcine bioprosthesis Aortic: St. Jude mechanical vs. porcine bioprosthetic Puvimanasinghe et al 2006 Observational 13 studies 6,481 patients 18 years for pericardial valves and up to 20 years for porcine supraanular valves Aortic: pericardial aortic vs. bioprosthetic Rizzoli et al 2004 Observational 11 studies 1,160 patients Mean duration: 6.8 years Tricuspid: Bioprosthetic vs. mechanical valves NR: not reported
consult-draft-clinical-evidence-guidelines-medical-devices.docx