OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare the composites of valve-related complications, namely reoperation, morbidity (defined as permanent neurologic or other functional impairment), and mortality, between bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement. METHODS: Between 1982 and 1998, 2195 bioprostheses were implanted in 2179 patients and 980 mechanical prostheses were implanted in 883 patients. Total follow-up was 16,442 years and 5740 years for bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses, respectively. Eight variables were considered as predictors of risk for the composites of valve-related complications. RESULTS: Linearized rates for valve-related reoperation were 1.3%/patient-year and 0.3%/patient-year for bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses (P < .001), respectively. All age groups were differentiated, except >70 years. Valve-related morbidity was differentiated for all age groups and overall, for bioprostheses and mechanical protheses, was 0.4 %/patient-year and 2.1%/patient-year, respectively (P < .001). Overall valve-related mortality was 1.0%/patient-year for bioprostheses and 0.7%/patient-year for mechanical prostheses (P = .018). Age and valve-type were predictive risk factors for reoperation and morbidity, whereas age alone was predictive of mortality. Actual freedom from valve-related reoperation favored mechanical prostheses for all age groups, except 61-70 years and >70 years. Actual freedom from valve-related morbidity favored bioprostheses in all age groups, except < or =40 years. Actual freedom from valve-related mortality was undifferentiated in patients 51-60, 61-70, and >70 years. CONCLUSION: No differences were observed in valve-related reoperation and mortality in patients >60 years. Comparative evaluation gives high priority for bioprostheses in patients >60 years based on improved morbidity profile. This evaluation extends this center's recommendation for bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement to include patients >60 years.
OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to compare the composites of valve-related complications, namely reoperation, morbidity (defined as permanent neurologic or other functional impairment), and mortality, between bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement. METHODS: Between 1982 and 1998, 2195 bioprostheses were implanted in 2179 patients and 980 mechanical prostheses were implanted in 883 patients. Total follow-up was 16,442 years and 5740 years for bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses, respectively. Eight variables were considered as predictors of risk for the composites of valve-related complications. RESULTS: Linearized rates for valve-related reoperation were 1.3%/patient-year and 0.3%/patient-year for bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses (P < .001), respectively. All age groups were differentiated, except >70 years. Valve-related morbidity was differentiated for all age groups and overall, for bioprostheses and mechanical protheses, was 0.4 %/patient-year and 2.1%/patient-year, respectively (P < .001). Overall valve-related mortality was 1.0%/patient-year for bioprostheses and 0.7%/patient-year for mechanical prostheses (P = .018). Age and valve-type were predictive risk factors for reoperation and morbidity, whereas age alone was predictive of mortality. Actual freedom from valve-related reoperation favored mechanical prostheses for all age groups, except 61-70 years and >70 years. Actual freedom from valve-related morbidity favored bioprostheses in all age groups, except < or =40 years. Actual freedom from valve-related mortality was undifferentiated in patients 51-60, 61-70, and >70 years. CONCLUSION: No differences were observed in valve-related reoperation and mortality in patients >60 years. Comparative evaluation gives high priority for bioprostheses in patients >60 years based on improved morbidity profile. This evaluation extends this center's recommendation for bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement to include patients >60 years.
Authors: Jeffrey G Gaca; Robert M Clare; J Scott Rankin; Mani A Daneshmand; Carmelo A Milano; G Chad Hughes; Walter G Wolfe; Donald D Glower; Peter K Smith Journal: J Heart Valve Dis Date: 2013-11
Authors: Ana López-de-Andrés; Napoleon Perez-Farinos; Javier de Miguel-Díez; Valentín Hernández-Barrera; Manuel Méndez-Bailón; José M de Miguel-Yanes; Rodrigo Jiménez-García Journal: Cardiovasc Diabetol Date: 2018-10-16 Impact factor: 9.951