Literature DB >> 29966596

Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 Years and Younger.

Sameer A Hirji1, Ahmed A Kolkailah1, Fernando Ramirez-Del Val1, Jiyae Lee1, Siobhan McGurk1, Marc Pelletier1, Steve Singh1, Hari R Mallidi1, Sary Aranki1, Prem Shekar1, Tsuyoshi Kaneko2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated outcomes in younger patients, specifically aged 50 years and younger, after mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) and bioprosthetic AVR (bAVR).
METHODS: From 1994 to 2016, 643 patients underwent AVR (411 mAVR and 232 bAVR) at age 50 or younger. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting and mitral valve procedures were also included. Propensity score-matching methods resulted in 170 evenly matched patient pairs. Primary end points were operative mortality and long-term survival. Secondary end points were stroke, major bleeding, and redo AVR. Median observation time was 8.1 years (range, 0 to 23.6 years).
RESULTS: Overall, mean age was 41.9 years, and 29.3% were women, with an increasing trend toward use of bAVR. Mean age in the matched patients was 43.3 years for both cohorts (p = 0.68). Operative mortality, stroke, atrial fibrillation, reoperation for bleeding, and readmission rates within 30 days were all similar between the two groups. bAVR patients were at higher risk for redo AVR (13% vs 1.6%, p < 0.001), and mAVR patients were at higher risk for major bleeding events (8.5% vs 2.2%, p = 0.006). However, when adjusted, there were no differences in midterm and long-term survival between unmatched and matched cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of reoperation for bAVR and major bleeding incidents for mAVR was not reflected in midterm and long-term survival differences between the two groups. Our results suggest that bAVR may be an acceptable prosthesis choice for some patients aged 50 years and younger, although the results should be taken with caution.
Copyright © 2018 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29966596     DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.05.073

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  4 in total

1.  How to Choose the Right Valve Prosthesis for My Patient?

Authors:  Roney Orismar Sampaio
Journal:  Arq Bras Cardiol       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 2.000

Review 2.  Clinical performance of decellularized heart valves versus standard tissue conduits: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Steve W F R Waqanivavalagi; Sameer Bhat; Marcus B Ground; Paget F Milsom; Jillian Cornish
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 1.637

3.  Perioperative and long-term outcomes of Ross versus mechanical aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Chelsea D Wenos; Jeremy L Herrmann; Lava R Timsina; Parth M Patel; John W Fehrenbacher; John W Brown
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2022-08-21       Impact factor: 1.778

4.  Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in people with low surgical risk.

Authors:  Ahmed A Kolkailah; Rami Doukky; Marc P Pelletier; Annabelle S Volgman; Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Ashraf F Nabhan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-12-20
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.