OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term clinical outcomes, including the perceived health-related quality of life, in patients younger than 65 years having undergone aortic valve replacement either with biological or mechanical valve prostheses. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2013, 242 consecutive patients <65 years of age underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institution, either with biological (n = 134, 55.4%) or mechanical (n = 108, 44.6%) prostheses. Survival, health-related quality of life, short- and long-term clinical outcomes and echocardiographic data were analysed with a retrospective, single-centre study. Propensity matching was performed. RESULTS: No significant difference in survival was found between the 2 groups (mechanical versus biological: 100% vs 96.6% at 1 year, 98.2% vs 93.1% at 5 years and 92.3% vs 83.4% at 10 years after surgery, P = 0.091). For all the interviewed patients (n = 161, 66.5%), perceived quality of life at the latest follow-up was excellent. Need for reoperation was higher in the bioprosthetic group (8% vs 0%, P = 0.995), whereas the rate of major bleedings was higher in the mechanical valve group (3% vs 20%, P = 0.094). The mean and maximum transvalvular pressure gradients were 20.5 ± 9.7 and 37.4 ± 17.5 mmHg in the biological group and 14.8 ± 4.8 and 26.6 ± 9.2 mmHg in the mechanical group (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between biological and mechanical valves in terms of patients' survival, clinical outcomes and quality of life. Mean and maximum transvalvular pressure gradients were significantly higher in the biological group. The majority of patients would opt for the same prosthesis type, if asked to choose again.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term clinical outcomes, including the perceived health-related quality of life, in patients younger than 65 years having undergone aortic valve replacement either with biological or mechanical valve prostheses. METHODS: Between 2002 and 2013, 242 consecutive patients <65 years of age underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institution, either with biological (n = 134, 55.4%) or mechanical (n = 108, 44.6%) prostheses. Survival, health-related quality of life, short- and long-term clinical outcomes and echocardiographic data were analysed with a retrospective, single-centre study. Propensity matching was performed. RESULTS: No significant difference in survival was found between the 2 groups (mechanical versus biological: 100% vs 96.6% at 1 year, 98.2% vs 93.1% at 5 years and 92.3% vs 83.4% at 10 years after surgery, P = 0.091). For all the interviewed patients (n = 161, 66.5%), perceived quality of life at the latest follow-up was excellent. Need for reoperation was higher in the bioprosthetic group (8% vs 0%, P = 0.995), whereas the rate of major bleedings was higher in the mechanical valve group (3% vs 20%, P = 0.094). The mean and maximum transvalvular pressure gradients were 20.5 ± 9.7 and 37.4 ± 17.5 mmHg in the biological group and 14.8 ± 4.8 and 26.6 ± 9.2 mmHg in the mechanical group (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between biological and mechanical valves in terms of patients' survival, clinical outcomes and quality of life. Mean and maximum transvalvular pressure gradients were significantly higher in the biological group. The majority of patients would opt for the same prosthesis type, if asked to choose again.
Authors: Emiliano A Rodríguez-Caulo; Diego Macías; Alejandro Adsuar; Andrea Ferreiro; Javier Arias-Dachary; Gertrudis Parody; Frank Fernández; Tomás Daroca; Felipe Rodríguez-Mora; José M Garrido; Ignacio Muñoz-Carvajal; José M Barquero; José F Valderrama; José M Melero Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: R Scott McClure; Siobhan McGurk; Marisa Cevasco; Ann Maloney; Igor Gosev; Esther M Wiegerinck; Genina Salvio; George Tokmaji; Wernard Borstlap; Foeke Nauta; Lawrence H Cohn Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-01-15 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: Alec Vahanian; Ottavio Alfieri; Felicita Andreotti; Manuel J Antunes; Gonzalo Barón-Esquivias; Helmut Baumgartner; Michael Andrew Borger; Thierry P Carrel; Michele De Bonis; Arturo Evangelista; Volkmar Falk; Bernard Lung; Patrizio Lancellotti; Luc Pierard; Susanna Price; Hans-Joachim Schäfers; Gerhard Schuler; Janina Stepinska; Karl Swedberg; Johanna Takkenberg; Ulrich Otto Von Oppell; Stephan Windecker; Jose Luis Zamorano; Marian Zembala Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-08-25 Impact factor: 4.191