Outcomes after bioprosthetic versus mechanical mitral valve replacement for infective endocarditis in the United States

Objective: In patients who underwent mitral valve replacement for infectious endocarditis, we evaluated the association of prosthesis choice with readmission rates and causes (the primary outcomes), as well as with in-hospital mortality, cost, and length of stay (the secondary outcomes). Methods: Patients with infectious endocarditis who underwent isolated mitral valve replacement from January 2016 to December 2018 were identified in the United States Nationwide Readmissions Database and stratified by valve type. Propensity score matching was used to compare adjusted outcomes. Results: A weighted total of 4206 patients with infectious endocarditis underwent bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (n = 3132) and mechanical mitral valve replacement (n = 1074) during the study period. Patients in the bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement group were older than those in the mechanical mitral valve replacement group (median 57 vs 46 y, P < .001). After propensity matching, the bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement group (n = 1068) had similar in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs compared with the mechanical mitral valve replacement group (n = 1056). Overall, 90-day readmission rates were high (28.9%) and comparable for bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (30.5%) and mechanical mitral valve replacement (27.5%, P = .4). Likewise, there was no difference in readmissions over a calendar year by prosthesis type. Readmissions for infection and bleeding were common for both bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement and mechanical mitral valve replacement groups. Conclusions: Outcomes and readmission rates were similar for mechanical mitral valve replacement and bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in infectious endocarditis, suggesting that valve choice should not be determined by endocarditis status. Additionally, strategies to mitigate readmission for infection and bleeding are needed for both groups. (JTCVS Open 2024;17:74-83)