BACKGROUND: Societal guidelines suggest that aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients age 50 to 70 years can be performed with either bioprosthetic or mechanical valves. This study reviewed outcomes between these valve types among patients aged 50 to 70 years undergoing AVR. METHODS: We examined adult patients 50 to 70 years undergoing isolated AVR with a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve at a single institution between 2010 and 2018. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate longitudinal survival and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used for risk adjustment. A propensity-matched analysis was performed as well. RESULTS: A total of 723 patients underwent isolated AVR with 467 (64.6%) receiving a bioprosthetic valve. At baseline, patients undergoing bioprosthetic AVR were older (median 65 vs 60 years; P < .001). One-year survival was comparable, however, survival at 5 years was significantly higher among patients undergoing mechanical AVR (95.5% vs 82.6%; P = .010). Among the 196 matched pairs, bioprosthetic AVR was associated with an increased adjusted hazard for death (hazards ratio, 3.29; P < .001). Additionally, 5-year freedom from stroke and bleeding were similar following matching, though mechanical AVR was associated with a greater freedom from repeat valve intervention (97.5% vs 92.9%; P = .020). CONCLUSION: In patients age 50 to 70, mechanical AVR is associated with improved long-term survival and freedom from repeat aortic valve intervention. Further large cohort studies should be performed to explore the potential benefits of mechanical valve replacement in this age range.
BACKGROUND: Societal guidelines suggest that aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients age 50 to 70 years can be performed with either bioprosthetic or mechanical valves. This study reviewed outcomes between these valve types among patients aged 50 to 70 years undergoing AVR. METHODS: We examined adult patients 50 to 70 years undergoing isolated AVR with a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve at a single institution between 2010 and 2018. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate longitudinal survival and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used for risk adjustment. A propensity-matched analysis was performed as well. RESULTS: A total of 723 patients underwent isolated AVR with 467 (64.6%) receiving a bioprosthetic valve. At baseline, patients undergoing bioprosthetic AVR were older (median 65 vs 60 years; P < .001). One-year survival was comparable, however, survival at 5 years was significantly higher among patients undergoing mechanical AVR (95.5% vs 82.6%; P = .010). Among the 196 matched pairs, bioprosthetic AVR was associated with an increased adjusted hazard for death (hazards ratio, 3.29; P < .001). Additionally, 5-year freedom from stroke and bleeding were similar following matching, though mechanical AVR was associated with a greater freedom from repeat valve intervention (97.5% vs 92.9%; P = .020). CONCLUSION: In patients age 50 to 70, mechanical AVR is associated with improved long-term survival and freedom from repeat aortic valve intervention. Further large cohort studies should be performed to explore the potential benefits of mechanical valve replacement in this age range.
Authors: Morgan L Brown; Hartzell V Schaff; Brian D Lahr; Charles J Mullany; Thoralf M Sundt; Joseph A Dearani; Christopher G McGregor; Thomas A Orszulak Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Yuting P Chiang; Joanna Chikwe; Alan J Moskowitz; Shinobu Itagaki; David H Adams; Natalia N Egorova Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-10-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Rick A Nishimura; Catherine M Otto; Robert O Bonow; Blase A Carabello; John P Erwin; Lee A Fleisher; Hani Jneid; Michael J Mack; Christopher J McLeod; Patrick T O'Gara; Vera H Rigolin; Thoralf M Sundt; Annemarie Thompson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Helmut Baumgartner; Volkmar Falk; Jeroen J Bax; Michele De Bonis; Christian Hamm; Per Johan Holm; Bernard Iung; Patrizio Lancellotti; Emmanuel Lansac; Daniel Rodriguez Muñoz; Raphael Rosenhek; Johan Sjögren; Pilar Tornos Mas; Alec Vahanian; Thomas Walther; Olaf Wendler; Stephan Windecker; Jose Luis Zamorano Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Eric G Butchart; Nicola Payne; Hui-Hua Li; Keith Buchan; Kayapanda Mandana; Gary L Grunkemeier Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: John G Webb; Michael J Mack; Jonathon M White; Danny Dvir; Philipp Blanke; Howard C Herrmann; Jonathon Leipsic; Susheel K Kodali; Raj Makkar; D Craig Miller; Philippe Pibarot; Augusto Pichard; Lowell F Satler; Lars Svensson; Maria C Alu; Rakesh M Suri; Martin B Leon Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-05-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: D Dean Potter; Thoralf M Sundt; Kenton J Zehr; Joseph A Dearani; Richard C Daly; Charles J Mullany; Christopher G A McGregor; Francisco J Puga; Hartzell V Schaff; Thomas A Orszulak Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Paolo Stassano; Luigi Di Tommaso; Mario Monaco; Francesco Iorio; Paolo Pepino; Nicola Spampinato; Carlo Vosa Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dong Fang Zhao; Michael Seco; James J Wu; James B Edelman; Michael K Wilson; Michael P Vallely; Michael J Byrom; Paul G Bannon Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 4.330