Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Assessing the benefit of biological valve prostheses: cumulative incidence (actual) vs. Kaplan–Meier (actuarial) analysis☆

2003; Oxford University Press; Volume: 23; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s1010-7940(03)00081-2

1873-734X

S. Kaempchen, Thomas Guenther, Michael Toschke, Gary L. Grunkemeier, Michael Wottke, Rüdiger Lange,

Cardiac Structural Anomalies and Repair

The standard method of analysing structural valve degeneration (SVD) of biological prostheses is the Kaplan-Meier method. In order to assess SVD with regard to competing risks (e.g. death particularly in elderly patients) cumulative incidence (actual analysis) was compared to Kaplan-Meier (actuarial analysis).We retrospectively analysed 257 patients older than 60 years, who underwent mitral valve replacement with different biological prostheses between 1974 and 2000. Reoperation-free survival was determined, both according to Kaplan-Meier and cumulative incidence analysis.For the total group of patients older than 60 years, the 10- and 15-year freedom from reoperation was 79+/-5 and 55+/-8%, respectively, according to Kaplan-Meier and 90+/-2 and 83+/-3% according to cumulative incidence analysis. For patients older than 65 years of age (n=170), Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed 85+/-7% freedom from reoperation at 10 years vs. 94+/-3% according to cumulative incidence analysis. For those between 60 and 65 years of age (n=87), Kaplan-Meier freedom from reoperation was 76+/-7% at 10 years and 48+/-9% at 15 years vs. 86+/-4 and 75+/-5% according to cumulative incidence analysis.Kaplan-Meier analysis overestimates the 10- and 15-year risk of SVD compared to cumulative incidence analysis, thus underestimating the benefit of biological valve replacement. Cumulative incidence analysis may lead to a more complete evaluation of risk and benefit and thus better patient management.