Paulo Roberto B Evora1, Domingo M Braile2. 1. Editor-in-Chief Interim - BJCVS Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto da Universidade de São Paulo (FMRP-USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. 2. Editor-in-Chief - BJCVS Faculdade de Medicina de São José do Rio Preto (FAMERP), São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil and Universidade de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil.
For patients aged between 60 and 65 years at the time of surgery, the current
guidelines of the major international cardiovascular societies propose that
mechanical or biological heart valve prosthesis are acceptable. However, the
evidence is still insufficient to recommend biological valves for patients younger
than 60 years, except in patients who have significant medical contraindications to
anticoagulant therapy. According to Hajj-Chahine et al.[, it is possible to think about a novel lower age
threshold for the use of biological aortic valves. However, even considering the
adverse effects of lifetime anticoagulation, new biological valves (less prone to
degeneration) and new technologies (for example TAVI), or even observing a trend
towards even younger patients in recent years, it is interesting to analyze the
results of aortic bioprosthetic valve replacement in patients aged <65 years at
the time of surgery. This evidence would lead patients and surgeons to different
aortic valve prosthesis choices and guidelines changes in a near future[.Otherwise, it it well known today that specific groups of the population, such women
during their reproductive age, athletes, inhabitants of socially and medically
remote areas and patients with visual or mental problems would be good candidates
for an aortic bioprosthesis, despite the fact that they were significantly younger
than 65 years. However, excluding these specific conditions, most of the published
data have a small number of patients and limited follow-up time to allow ample
freedom in choosing aortic valve prostheses. In addition, the increased reports
about the low rate of reoperations and the low incidence of neurological events
provide cardiac surgeons and patients with greater freedom in the selection of
aortic bioprostheses. Also, considering the options for interventions with far less
morbidity and mortality, making reoperations attractive, it will not surprise that
they chose and will keep choosing biological aortic valves over mechanical
ones[. Therefore, it is
interesting to keep analyzing the results of aortic bioprosthetic valve replacement
in patients aged <65 years at the time of surgery[.
Articles in this Issue
This issue of BJCVS presents a blind peer-reviewed selection of 15 papers that were
selected by order of acceptance (10 original papers, 2 review articles, and 3
selected case reports).