Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: Improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses

Prosthetic Heart Valves: More than Half a Century of Innovation-An Overview

Since Dr. Charles Hufnagel introduced the first ball-in-cage valve prosthesis in 1952 to treat a patient with aortic regurgitation, the field of valvular heart disease has undergone remarkable evolution in both prosthetic valve development and patient management. Over the past 73 years, a wide range of valvular prostheses have been developed, each offering distinct advantages in terms of durability, thrombogenicity, and hemodynamics. This review aims to provide a detailed discussion of commonly known and used valvular heart prostheses, along with a review of newer endovascular prostheses. As ongoing research and innovation continue to shape the field, we can expect further improvements in hemodynamics, clinical outcomes, cost, ease of operation, and patient quality of life.

Comparative evaluation of mechanical and biological prostheses in patients with aortic stenosis

OBJECTIVES

The commonly accepted aortic valve prostheses have been either mechanical or biological. Each type has its advantages and disadvantages, with age being the most widely accepted variable to determine the best option. There is, however, a range between 60 and 70 years where an individualized approach is required.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study. The primary outcome was overall survival based on the type of prosthesis used, stratified by effect modifiers. Association between prosthesis type and mortality rate was evaluated using the incidence rate ratio. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular survival, postoperative mortality and complications, adjusted for age. Cox regression analysis was performed to account for confounders. Variation in the hazard ratio for death by age was explored by fitting a restricted cubic spline to the interaction between age and valve type. We included all adult patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement for severe stenosis in Uruguay from 2011 to 2021. A total of 3944 patients were enrolled; 1708 were females. Median follow-up time was 4.5 years.

RESULTS

Bioprostheses (BP) were associated with higher mortality in males and in patients without statins. When mortality rate was stratified by age, BP were associated with a higher risk in patients younger than 60 and a lower risk in the 70-79 age group.

CONCLUSIONS

BP are associated with worse survival in male patients and in the <60-year-old age group. Gender and statins should be considered when deciding the prosthesis for patients in the 60-69 age group. When the relative survival benefit of BP was analysed, 70 years was identified as the threshold at which their benefit became evident compared to mechanical prostheses.

Progressive LV Dysfunction and Adverse Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Valves in Young Patients

BACKGROUND

Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and reoperations/reinterventions are common after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic valves, leading to cycles of left ventricular (LV) pressure overload and unloading. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative changes in LV structure and function and their relationship to clinical outcomes in young patients who underwent AVR with bioprosthetic valves (Bio_AVR group) versus mechanical prosthetic valves (Mech_AVR group).

METHODS

Retrospective study of adults with congenital heart disease who underwent AVR at Mayo Clinic (2003-2023). The Bio_AVR group was matched 1:2 to the Mech_AVR group. LV indices (LV mass index, relative wall thickness, LV global longitudinal strain, averaged e', and averaged E/e') and clinical indices (NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide] and New York Heart Association class) were assessed preoperatively, and at 1, 5, and 10 years post-AVR.

RESULTS

We studied 151 and 302 patients in the Bio_AVR and Mech_AVR groups, respectively (age 38±16 years, 58% males). Both groups had similar LV and clinical indices at baseline and 1 year post-AVR. However, the Bio_AVR group had higher LV mass index, relative wall thickness, and averaged E/e', and lower averaged e' and LV global longitudinal strain at 5 and 10 years post-AVR. Of 51 patients from the Bio_AVR group who underwent a second AVR, there was less robust improvement in LV indices and clinical indices after the second AVR compared with the first AVR.

CONCLUSIONS

AVR with a bioprosthetic valve was associated with progressive LV hypertrophy and dysfunction, and worsening clinical status compared with mechanical prosthetic valves. This provides further evidence against the use of bioprosthetic AVR in young patients.

Long-term clinical outcomes in patients between the age of 50-70 years receiving biological versus mechanical aortic valve prostheses

OBJECTIVES

The last 2 decades have seen an incremental use of biological over mechanical prostheses. However, while short-term clinical outcomes are largely equivalent, there is still controversy about long-term outcomes.

METHODS

All patients between the ages of 50 and 70 years undergoing elective/urgent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institute between 1996 and 2023 were included. Trends, early, and long-term outcomes were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 1708 (61% male) patients with a median age of 63.60 (interquartile range: 58.28-67.0) years were included of which 1191 (69.7%) received a biological prosthesis. After inverse propensity score weighting, there were no short-term differences when comparing patients receiving biological and mechanical valves. However, patients who received mechanical prostheses had better long-term survival (P < 0.001). Sub-group analysis revealed that patients with biological size 19 mm prosthesis had the worst long-term survival. Patients with a size 21-mm mechanical prosthesis had better survival compared to both size 19-mm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17-0.37, P < 0.001], 21-mm (HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.23-0.48, P < 0.001) and 23-mm (HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.27-0.60, P < 0.001) biological prosthesis. Additionally, patients with severe patient-prosthesis mismatch exhibited the lowest survival rate compared to those with moderate or no (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients aged between 50 and 70 years with a mechanical aortic prosthesis had better long-term survival compared to those with a biological prosthesis. Our study underscores the need for a critical re-evaluation of prosthesis selection strategies in this age group.

Mechanical heart valves between myths and new evidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The use of mechanical valve prostheses in cardiac surgery remains a necessary and indicated intervention in a large number of patients. However, predicted results associated with their use, on which current guideline recommendations have been developed, are based on dated studies at risk of bias (e.g. use of old generation models, very high international normalized ratio regimes).

METHODS

A comprehensive search in multiple electronic databases was conducted from January 1995 to January 2024 using predefined criteria. The primary outcomes included all-cause death, bleeding events and thromboembolic events (i.e. stroke) at follow-up.

RESULTS

Overall, 38 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Cumulative meta-analysis results for mortality, thromboembolic events and bleeding events were initially extremely variable and tended to become more consistent over time. A meta-regression for the impact of age and sex on mortality showed no difference, whereas a meta-regression for the impact of age and sex on thromboembolic events and on bleeding events showed a higher risk in the elderly and in female patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The lack of fundamental information on the type of anticoagulant treatment (e.g. dosage, monitoring method) in the studies published to date does not allow us to draw any definitive conclusions on the outcomes of mechanical valve prostheses. The most recent studies have provided more consistent results, which in the past were highly variable, probably due to overcoming the bias in the use of prosthetic models of different generations.

Medium-term survival of patients with mechanical and biological aortic prosthesis at the 6th decade of life

OBJECTIVE

The best aortic prosthesis type in 60-70 year old patients is not established. Our aim was to evaluate the survival in a National cohort of patients between 60-70 years old who required surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis (SAVR) with either a mechanical (MP) or bioprosthesis (BP) valve.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study using national data from the Ministry of Health. We included all patients between 60 to 70 years old who underwent SAVR for aortic stenosis in Uruguay from 2011 to 2021. The primary outcome was overall survival according to type of prosthesis used stratified by effect modifiers. The independent effects of gender and use of statins were evaluated.

RESULTS

We included 1196 patients (66±3.0 years old; 39.1% female). Mortality was higher for BP (296, 29.9%%) than MP (36, 17.1%; p<0.001). Median follow-up time was 4.5 years (Interquartile range [IQR] 3.4-6.5). The unadjusted incidence rate ratio was higher for BP (Incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.43;95%CI: 0.99, 2.14, p = 0.045). The effect of BP on mortality rate was greater in males (IRR = 1.82;95%CI:1.14,2.92. p interaction = 0.08) and patients who were not taking statins (IRR = 1.97;95%CI:1.14,3.41. p interaction = 0.06). The use of BP was an independent predictor of overall survival in male patients (Hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32;95%CI: 1.68, 1.04. p = 0.021) and in patients who were not taking statins (HR = 2.07;95%CI: 1.17, 3.67. p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

The use of BP was associated with worse survival in male patients and patients not taking statins. Gender and statins use should contribute to type of prosthesis decision in the 60-69 age group.

Twenty-year experience following aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age

OBJECTIVE

Reports on long-term outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients aged < 60 years are scarce in Japan. Hence, we aimed to evaluate these outcomes in patients aged < 60 years.

METHODS

Between March 2000 and December 2020, 1477 patients underwent aortic valve replacement. In total, 170 patients aged < 60 years who underwent aortic valve replacement were recruited. Patients aged < 18 years were excluded. Patient data collected from the operative records and follow-up assessments were reviewed.

RESULTS

The mean age was 49 ± 9 years, and 64.1% of patients were male. One-hundred-and-fifty-two patients (89.4%) underwent aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve and 18 (10.6%) with a bioprosthetic valve. The mean follow-up period was 8.1 ± 5.5 years. No operative mortality occurred, and in-hospital mortality occurred in one patient (0.6%). Ten late deaths occurred, with seven cardiac-related deaths. The overall survival rate was 95.4 ± 1.7%, 93.9 ± 2.3%, 90.6 ± 3.9%, and 73.2 ± 11.8% at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively. Freedom from major bleeding was 96.4 ± 1.6% at 5, 10, and 15 years, and 89.0 ± 7.3% at 20 years. Freedom from thromboembolic events was 98.7 ± 1.3%, 97.3 ± 1.9%, 90.5 ± 4.5%, and 79.0 ± 11.3% at 5, 10, 15, and 20 years, respectively. Freedom from valve-related reoperation was 99.4 ± 0.6% at 5 years, 97.8 ± 1.7% at 10 and 15 years, and 63.9 ± 14.5% at 20 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients aged < 60 years undergoing aortic valve replacement with a high mechanical valve implantation rate had favorable long-term outcomes.

Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 70 Years

Background

This study compared the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged 50 to 70 years based on the type of prosthetic valve used.

Methods

We compared patients who underwent mechanical AVR to those who underwent bioprosthetic AVR at our institution between January 2000 and March 2019. Competing risk analysis and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method based on propensity score were employed for comparisons.

Results

A total of 1,580 patients (984 patients with mechanical AVR; 596 patients with bioprosthetic AVR) were enrolled. There was no significant difference in early mortality between the mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR groups (0.9% vs. 1.7%, p=0.177). After IPTW adjustment, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group than in the mechanical AVR group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.80; p=0.014). Competing risk analysis revealed lower risks of stroke (sub-distributional hazard ratio [sHR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67; p<0.001) and anticoagulation- related bleeding (sHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.53; p<0.001) in the bioprosthetic AVR group. Conversely, the risk of aortic valve (AV) reintervention was higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group (sHR, 6.14; 95% CI, 3.17-11.93; p<0.001).

Conclusion

Among patients aged 50 to 70 years who underwent surgical AVR, those receiving mechanical valves showed better survival than those with bioprosthetic valves. The mechanical AVR group exhibited a higher risk of stroke and anticoagulation-related bleeding, while the bioprosthetic AVR group showed a higher risk of AV reintervention.

Aortic valve replacement with rapid-deployment bioprosthesis in case of infective endocarditis: a literature review

Purpose

Recently, the use of rapid deployment (RD) aortic valve prostheses has been introduced for the treatment of aortic valve replacement (AVR), showing excellent hemodynamic performances.According to these data, some groups have proposed new RD valves as an alternative solution in the case of infective aortic endocarditis (IAE) to reduce the use of foreign materials, and the manipulation of the annulus.The aim of this review is to report the results of early clinical experiences with the use of RD bioprostheses in the case of IAE, in order to discuss technical and clinical aspects of this emerging strategy to better elucidate its advantages and limitations as a potential therapeutic solution.

Methods

An in-depth search of PubMed from January to March 2023 was performed. English-language articles were selected independently by authors following the criteria in order to consider all available experiences (full papers, case reports, and case series) that have investigated the use of RD in case of IAE.

Results

The use of rapid deployment bioprosthesis represents a bailout strategy in case of severe aortic valve endocarditis and should be evaluated with caution in selected cases. This review collects the first, initial, and pioneering experiences of the use of the RD prosthesis in case of infective endocarditis, particularly when the fragility of the annular tissues precludes a secure anchoring of sutured prostheses.The reduced use of foreign materials by minimizing the number of stitches, the reduced cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times, and the excellent hemodynamic performances associated with the use of RD bioprosthesis represent the most important advantages that could justify their use in the setting of aortic valve endocarditis.

Conclusion

Although there are few anecdotal experiences, surgical aortic valve replacement with the use of RD represents an emerging strategy in case of aortic valve endocarditis. Its advantages, pros, and cons are under debate, and robust clinical trials are needed to demonstrate its safety and efficacy.

Ten-Year Long-Term Analysis of Mechanical and Biological Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

 For patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), structural valve deterioration (SVD) of a bioprosthesis (BP) is substantially accelerated in younger patients and valve-in-valve implantation is not always a considerable option. The risk-benefit assessment between SVD versus the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients with a mechanical prosthesis (MP) resulted in an age limit shift irrespective of inconsistent results reported in literature.

METHOD

 This retrospective single-center study compared 10-year long-term outcomes in patients undergoing isolated AVR with MP or BP. The risk-adjusted comparison of patients undergoing isolated AVR (n = 121) was performed after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) for age, sex, endocarditis, and chronic renal impairment (caliper of 0.2) leading to 29 pairs. Short- and long-term outcomes with respect to reoperation, major bleeding, stroke, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and overall survival at 10 years were analyzed.

RESULTS

 After PSM, groups were comparable with respect to preoperative characteristics, including patients with a mean age of 65 ± 3 years (MP) and 66 ± 4 years (BP) and an incidence rate of 6.9% for infective endocarditis in both cohorts. Short-term outcomes (transient neurologic disorder = 0.0 vs. 6.9%; stroke = 0.0%; in-hospital mortality = 3.4%) and in-hospital stays were comparable between MP and BP.

CONCLUSION

 After isolated AVR with MP and BP, 10-year long-term outcomes were comparable in the reported single-center cohort. MP can still be implanted safely without a disadvantage as regards long-term survival.

Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis After Aortic Valve Replacement: Differences Between Biological and Mechanical Prostheses

AIMS

Prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) is the most severe form of infective endocarditis associated with a high mortality rate. Whether PVE affects biological and mechanical aortic valves to the same extent remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the incidence of re-intervention because of PVE between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves.

METHODS

Patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or combined AVR in a single cardiac surgery centre between January 1998 and December 2019 were analysed. All patients who underwent re-intervention because of PVE were identified. The primary endpoint was the rate of explants. Freedom from re-intervention and variables associated with re-intervention were analysed using Cox regression analysis including correction for competing risk.

RESULTS

During the study period, 5,983 aortic valve prostheses were implanted, including 3,620 biological (60.5%) and 2,363 mechanical (39.5%) prostheses. The overall mean follow-up period was 7.3±5.3 years (median, 6.5; IQR 2.9-11.2 years). The rate of re-intervention for PVE in the biological group was 1.5% (n=54) compared with 1.7% (n=40) in the mechanical group (p=0.541). Cox regression analysis revealed that younger age (HR 0.960, 95% CI 0.942-0.979; p<0.001), male sex (HR 2.362, 95% CI 1.384-4.033; p=0.002), higher creatinine (HR 1.002, 95% CI 0.999-1.004; p=0.057), and biological valve prosthesis (HR 2.073, 95% CI 1.258-3.414; p=0.004) were associated with re-intervention for PVE. After correction for competing risk of death, biological valve prosthesis was significantly associated with a higher rate of re-intervention for PVE (HR 2.011, 95% CI 1.177-3.437; p=0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

According to this single-centre, observational, retrospective cohort study, AVR using biological prosthesis is associated with re-intervention for PVE compared to mechanical prosthesis. Further investigations are needed to verify these findings.

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 70 Years: Mechanical or Bioprosthetic Valve? A Systematic Review

Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation has emerged as a very attractive treatment option for severe aortic valve disease, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is still considered the standard-of-care, particularly in younger patients. However, selecting the appropriate type of valve prosthesis for this patient population can pose challenges. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate morbidity and mortality in patients aged 50-70 years who have undergone a first-time SAVR, and to define and compare the outcomes of mechanical valve (MV) and biological valve (BV) prosthesis. A systematic search was conducted to investigate the clinical outcomes of MVs and BVs in patients aged 50-70 years following the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 16,111 patients were included in the studies with an average follow-up of 10 years. A total of 16 studies were selected, 12 of which included propensity-score-matching (PMS) analysis and 4 of which obtained results via multivariate analysis. The vast majority (13 studies) showed no greater survival benefit in either MVs and BVs, while three studies showed an advantage of MVs over BVs. Regarding complications, bleeding was the most common adverse event in patients undergoing MV replacement, while for patients receiving BV prosthesis, it was structural valve deterioration and reoperation. Although the data suggest that the BV option could be a safe option in patients younger than 70 years, more studies with contemporary data are needed to draw firm conclusions on the risks and benefits of BV or MV in SAVR. Physicians should individualize the surgical plan based on patient characteristics.

Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical Valves vs Perimount Bioprostheses in 50- to 69-Year-Old Patients

Background

Evidence is mixed regarding the most appropriate type of valve prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients 50 to 69 years. American and European guidelines differ.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine the long-term all-cause mortality and complication rates after AVR in patients aged 50 to 69 years according to implantation of a Perimount bioprosthetic valve or a mechanical valve.

Methods

In this nationwide observational cohort study, all patients aged 50 to 69 years who underwent primary surgical AVR in Sweden 2003 to 2018 using a Perimount bioprosthesis or mechanical valve were identified from the SWEDEHEART register. Primary outcome; all-cause mortality, secondary outcomes; major bleeding, aortic valve reintervention, heart failure hospitalization, and stroke. National health-data registers were used to ascertain outcomes. Regression standardization addressed confounding.

Results

A total of 6,907 patients aged 50 to 69 years were included (Perimount group, n = 3,831 and mechanical valve group, n = 3,076) and 74% were men. The use of bioprostheses increased during the study period. At 15 years of follow-up, the estimated cumulative incidence of all-cause mortality was 37% (95% CI: 35%-40%) vs 45% (95% CI: 42%-48%) in the mechanical and Perimount groups, respectively (survival difference -7.9% [95% CI: -11% to -4.6%]). Patients with mechanical valves had a lower risk of aortic valve reintervention but a higher risk for bleeding. Survival difference at 15 years in ages 50 to 59 years was -15% (95% CI: -8.4% to -21%).

Conclusions

In patients aged 50 to 69 years who underwent surgical AVR, survival was better in those who received mechanical compared to Perimount bioprosthetic valves. While valve choice should be guided by individual patient factors and patient preference rather than by chronological age, the substantial survival advantage observed in patients with mechanical valves in ages 50 to 59 years must be recognized.

Complexity and Outcome of Reoperations After the Ross Procedure in the Current Era

BACKGROUND

The Ross procedure has several advantages, but the need for reintervention is inevitable. The aim of this study was to examine the complexity and outcomes of reoperation after the Ross procedure.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed of patients with a prior Ross procedure who underwent reoperation at our institution from September 1991 to January 2021. Demographic, echocardiographic, surgical, and perioperative data were collected. Descriptive statistical and regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients underwent a reoperation at Mayo Clinic after the initial Ross procedure performed at our institution (n = 16; 16.2%) or elsewhere (n = 83; 83.8%). Mean age at the Ross procedure was 27 ± 17 years, and mean age at reoperation at our institution was 37 ± 19 years. Indications for surgical procedure varied, but 64% had autograft regurgitation as 1 of their indications for reoperation. Autograft interventions were performed in 78 patients (74.2%). Pulmonary valve or conduit replacement was performed in 56 patients (53.3%). Double root replacement was performed in 11 patients (10.5%). Aortic reconstruction was performed in 37 patients (38.4%). There were 5 early deaths (5%). During a median follow-up of 6.25 years (3 months-24 years), late deaths occurred in 14 patients (13.1%). Patients with ejection fraction <30% on preoperative echocardiography had shorter duration between the Ross procedure and subsequent reoperation (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Reoperations after the Ross procedure are performed for a wide range of indications, with most due to autograft dysfunction. The number of early deaths is not low. Reoperation after the Ross procedure should be advised before left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Middle-Aged Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Mechanical prostheses and bioprosthetic prostheses have their own advantages and disadvantages. Mechanical ones are recommended for younger patients (<50 years old), and bioprosthetic ones are recommended for older patients (>70 years old). There is still debate regarding which kind of prosthesis is better for middle-aged patients (50 to 70 years old) receiving aortic valve replacement (AVR). To solve this problem, we conducted this meta-analysis. Given that only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included, we conducted a subgroup analysis of RCT and propensity score matching (PSM) retrospective studies to reduce the bias.

METHODS

We systematically searched articles related to clinical outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic prostheses in middle-aged patients receiving AVR in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. The published date was up to 1 October 2022. Studies were excluded if not only middle-aged patients were included, or if they lacked direct comparisons between mechanical and bioprosthetic prostheses.

RESULTS

In total, 22 studies with 32,298 patients were included in the final analysis. The results show that patients aged between 50 and 70 receiving AVR with mechanical prostheses achieved better long-term survival and fewer reoperations and valve-related events but suffered more with bleeding events. No significant difference could be found in terms of early mortality and long-term cardiac death. The same results could be observed in the subgroup analysis of RCT and PSM retrospective studies.

CONCLUSION

Both mechanical and bioprosthetic prostheses are beneficial to middle-aged patients undertaking AVR procedures. However, mechanical prostheses show better clinical outcomes in long-term survival and comorbidities. Individual recommendation is still necessary.

Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years: Analysis using Korean National Big Data

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and long-term survival in patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves.

METHODS

Patients aged 50-69 years who had undergone AVR from 2002 to 2018 were identified and their characteristics were collected from Korean National Health Information Database formed by the National Health Insurance Service, Republic of Korea. Of the 5792 patients, 1060 patients were excluded due to missing values on characteristics. Of the 4732 study patients, 1945 patients (41.1%) had received bioprosthetic valves (Group B) and 2787 patients (58.9%) had received mechanical valves (Group M). A propensity score-matched analysis was performed to match 1429 patients in each group. Data on mortality, cardiac mortality, reoperations, cerebrovascular accidents, and bleeding complications were obtained.

RESULTS

The overall survival rates at 5 and 10 years postoperatively were 87.8% and 75.2% in the matched Group B and 91.2% and 76.7% in the matched Group M, respectively (p = .140). Freedom from cardiac death rates at postoperative 5 and 10 years were 95.6% and 92.4% in the matched Group B and 96.0% and 92.1% in the matched Group M, respectively (p = .540). The cumulative incidence of reoperation was higher in the matched Group B than in the matched Group M (p = .007), and the cumulative incidence of major bleeding was higher in the matched Group M than in the matched Group B (p = .039).

CONCLUSION

In patients aged 50-69 years who underwent isolated AVR, the patients who received bioprosthetic valves showed similar cardiac mortality-free survival and long-term survival rates to the patients who received mechanical valves.

Valve choice for aortic valve replacement in patients between 50 and 70 years of age

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is a lack of clarity on whether to choose a mechanical or a bioprosthetic valve for aortic valve replacement in patients between the age of 50 and 70.

METHODS

In this review, the existing evidence on the subject has been evaluated.

RESULTS

Decision-making in this age group is heavily dependent on patient choice and patient-related factors. Mechanical valves in this age group are associated with an increased risk of bleeding while reoperations remain an important concern with bioprosthetic valves. Stroke rates have been reported to be largely similar in both valve types.

CONCLUSION

There appears to be conflicting data on survival with some studies suggesting a survival benefit with mechanical valves.

Controversy pro: Mechanical AVR for better long-term survival of 50-70 years old

Selection of the most appropriate type of aortic valve prosthesis (mechanical or biologic) for patients 50-70 years of age is a matter of frequent debate. The purpose of this article is to review overlooked concepts and misconceptions in valve-related complications, prosthesis durability, and late survival to aid decision making in contemporary practice. A trend favoring improved long-term survival was found among patients who receive a mechanical prosthesis compared to a biologic substitute. Additionally, an acceptably low rate of long-term valve-related thromboembolism and hemorrhage was found among those with mechanical prostheses. Implantation of a biologic valve substitute did not appear to reduce the risk of thromboembolism, may not eliminate the need for long-term anticoagulation and may be associated with an increased risk of late mortality. These findings may aid providers (and patients) in the preoperative consultation and seem to support consideration of a mechanical heart valve substitute over a biologic valve for patients 50-70 years age.

Long-term outcomes of patients undergoing mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic root replacement

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the impact of valve type (mechanical vs. bioprosthetic) on survival after aortic root replacement (ARR).

METHODS

In a propensity-matched analysis, we evaluated consecutive operations from 2010 to 2018. Patients were identified using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Patients with infective endocarditis were excluded. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariable Cox regression analysis were performed. Cox regression adjusted for age, sex, baseline comorbidities, and operative variables. Propensity score matching yielded 153 pairs of patients.

RESULTS

A total of 893 patients were identified. We excluded 192 patients with endocarditis and evaluated 701 patients. Of these patients, 455 (64.9%) received a bioprosthetic valve, 246 (35.1%) received a mechanical valve. Median follow-up was 4.06 years. The proportion of aortic dissections and circulatory arrest as well as cardiopulmonary bypass and ischemic times were similar across groups (p = .207, p = .086, p = .668, p = .454, respectively). Operative mortality was significantly higher in the bioprosthetic valve group (7.9% vs. 2.4%, p = .004). Total length of hospital stay was longer (11.4 ± 11.0 vs. 9.5 ± 10.1, p < .001) and there was a higher proportion of prolonged postoperative ventilation >24 h (21.3% vs. 13.0%, p = .007) in the bioprosthetic group. Postoperative outcomes were similar, regarding stroke (p = .077), re-exploration for bleeding (p = .211), new dialysis requirement (p = .077), long-term bleeding complications (p = .561), and reoperations (p = .755). Mechanical valve replacement was associated with improved long-term survival (adjusted HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.23-0.77, p = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that mechanical valves for ARRs may confer a survival benefit over bioprosthetic valves. Surgeon bias was likely to account for this survival advantage.

Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Valve for Aortic Valve Replacement: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Individual Participant Data

OBJECTIVES

To compare biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials and propensity-score matched studies published by October 14th, 2021 according to PRISMA statement. Individual patient data on overall survival were extracted. One- and two-stage survival analyses, and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

25 studies were identified, incorporating 8,721 bioprosthetic and 8,962 mechanical valves:. In the one-stage meta-analysis, mechanical valves cumulatively demonstrated decreased hazard for mortality (Hazard Ratio [HR] : 0.79, 95% Confidence interval [CI] : 0.74-0.84, p < 0.0001). Overall survival was similar between the compared arms for patients <50 years old (HR: 0.88, 95% CI : 0.71-1.1, p = 0.216), increased in the mechanical valve arm for patients 50-70 years old (HR : 0.76, 95% CI : 0.70-0.83, p < 0.0001), and increased in the bioprosthetic arm for patients >70 years old (HR : 1.35, 95% CI : 1.17-1.57, p < 0.0001). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the survival in the 50-70 years old group was not influenced by the publication year of the individual studies. No statistically significant difference was observed regarding in-hospital mortality, post-operative strokes and post-operative reoperation. All-cause mortality was found decreased in the mechanical group, cardiac mortality was comparable between the two groups, major bleeding rates were increased in the mechanical valve group, and reoperation rates were increased in the bioprosthetic valve group.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival rates seem to not be influenced by the type of prosthesis in patients <50 years old. A survival advantage in favour of mechanical valves is observed in patients 50-70 years old, while in patients >70 years old bioprosthetic valves offer better survival outcomes.

Mechanical vs. bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 70 years of age - a hazard ratio meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The choice between mechanical valves (MV) and bioprosthetic valves (BV) in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery is complex, requiring a balance between the inferior durability of BV and the indicated long-term anticoagulation therapy with MV. This is especially challenging in middle age group (<70 years of age) that has seen an increased use of BV over recent years.

METHODS

A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies using propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse-probability-weighing (IPW) was conducted to examine the clinical outcomes of patients <70 years of age undergoing aortic valve replacement. Primary outcome was overall long-term mortality. Secondary outcomes included bleeding events, re-operation, systemic thromboembolism, and cerebrovascular accident (CVA).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (1 RCT, 12 PSM, and 2 IPW studies, aggregated sample size 16,876 patients) were included. Median follow-up was 7.8 years. Mortality was higher with BV vs. MV (HR 1.22 [1.00-1.49]), as was re-operation (HR 3.05 [2.22-4.19]). Bleeding risk was lower with BV (HR 0.58 [0.48-0.69]), and the risk of stroke was similar in both valve types (HR 0.96 [0.83-1.11]) CONCLUSIONS: In this broadest meta-analysis comparing BV and MV, results suggest a survival benefit for MV in patients < 70 years of age. This should lead to reassessment of current patterns used in the choice of valves for patients <70 among the cardiothoracic surgery community.

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement-Age-Dependent Choice of Prosthesis Type

Background: Recently, the use of surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses has been favoured in younger patients. We aimed to analyse the long-term survival and postoperative MACCE (Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebral Event) rates in patients after isolated aortic valve replacement. Methods: We conducted a single-centre observational retrospective study, including all consecutive patients with isolated aortic valve replacement. 1:1 propensity score matching of the preoperative baseline characteristics was performed. Results: A total of 2172 patients were enrolled in the study. After propensity score matching the study included 428 patients: 214 biological vs. 214 mechanical prostheses, divided into two subgroups: group A < 60 years and group B > 60 years. The mean follow-up time was 7.6 ± 3.9 years. Estimated survival was 97 ± 1.9% and 89 ± 3.4% at 10 years for biological and mechanical prosthesis, respectively in group A (p = 0.06). In group B the survival at 10 years was 79.1 ± 5.8% and 69.8 ± 4.4% for biological and mechanical prosthesis, respectively (p = 0.83). In group A, patients with a bioprosthesis exhibited a tendency for higher cumulative incidence MACCE rates compared to patients with a mechanical prosthesis, p = 0.83 (bio 7.3 ± 5.3% vs. mech 4.6 ± 2.2% at 10 years). In group B, patients with a mechanical prosthesis showed a tendency for higher cumulative incidence MACCE rates compared to patients with bioprosthesis, p = 0.86 (bio 4.3 ± 3.1% vs. mech 9.1 ± 3.1% at 10 years). Conclusions: Long-term survival after surgical aortic valve replacement is similar in patients with a biological and mechanical prosthesis, independent of the patients’ age. Moreover, younger patients (<60 years) with bioprosthesis showed a survival benefit, compared to patients with mechanical prosthesis in this age group.

Late onset atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement

OBJECTIVE

Aortic valve disease is a risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF), and AF is associated with increased late mortality and morbidity after cardiac surgery. The evolution of alternative approaches to AF prophylaxis, including less invasive technologies and medical therapies, has altered the balance between risk and potential benefit for prophylactic intervention at the time of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Such interventions impose incremental risk, however, making an understanding of predictors of new onset AF that persists beyond the perioperative episode relevant.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective single-institution cohort analysis of patients undergoing SAVR with no history of preoperative AF (n = 1014). These patients were cross-referenced against an institutional electrocardiogram (ECG) database to identify those with ECGs 3-12 months after surgery. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of late AF.

RESULTS

Among the 401 patients (40%), who had ECGs in our institution 3-12 months after surgery, 16 (4%) had late AF. Patients with late AF were older than patients without late AF (73 vs. 65, p = .025), and underwent procedures that were more urgent/emergent (38% vs. 15%, p = .015), with higher predicted risk of mortality (2.2% vs. 1.3%, p = .012). Predictors associated with the development of late AF were advanced age, higher preoperative creatinine level and urgent/emergent surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of late AF 3-12 months after SAVR, is low. Prophylactic AF interventions at the time of SAVR may not be warranted.

Surgical aortic valve replacement in the modern era: Insights from the French Registry EPICARD

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the demographic changes and postoperative outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in recent years since the advent of trans-catheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in France.

METHODS

Demographic, surgical data, and early outcomes of patients undergoing SAVR for AS were reviewed from The French registry EPICARD before (2007-2012) and after (2013-2018) approval of TAVI by French health authorities. We included patients with less than 20% of missing data per variable and per patient. Univariate and multivariate analysis were conducted to assess for risk factors of mortality and acute kidney failure (AKF) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT).

RESULTS

A total of 27,398 patients from the EPICARD registry were included: 8819, in the early cohort (2007-2012) and 18,579 in the recent cohort (2013-2018). In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were lower in the recent cohort compared to the early cohort, respectively 1.22% versus 2.20 (p < .001) and 1.22% versus 2.34% (p < .001). The bioprosthesis-to-mechanical prosthesis ratio significantly increased over the time: from 5.3 to 8.1. In the recent cohort, rates of postoperative blood transfusions, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and AKF requiring RRT were lower. In-hospital and 30-day mortality risks were decreased in the recent cohort, with odds ratio respectively of 0.668 [0.466-0.958] and 0.66 [0.460-0.945] in multivariate (p ≤ .005) and univariate analysis (p < .001). Risk of AKF with RRT was unchanged.

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study from the French registry EPICARD shows significant reduced hospital mortality and persistent favourable early outcomes of SAVR since TAVI implementation.

Aortic root replacement with Medtronic Freestyle bioprosthesis: 25-year experience

BACKGROUND

Stentless porcine bioprothesis is a surgical strategy to treat aortic root disease. Use has been limited due to the concern for long-term valve degeneration. This study evaluated the perioperative and late outcomes of patients with aortic root disease requiring root replacement.

METHODS

A total of 409 patients underwent aortic root replacement by a single surgeon using a stentless porcine bioroot between February 1996 and May 2020. The cohort was divided into two groups (age ≤65 and >65 years). Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data and Kaplan-Meier curves used to evaluate long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients age >65 years were more likely to be female (p = .01), have hypertension (p = .01), require circulatory arrest (p = .01), and have concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (p = .04). Baseline creatinine >1.8 (p = .20), diabetes (p = .06), and ejection fraction (p = .20) were similar between groups. The 1-, 5-, and 10-year survival for patients age ≤65 years were 92%, 87%, and 69%, respectively, significantly better than patients age >65 (88%, 73%, and 43%, respectively) (p < .01, Figure 1). The 1-, 5-, and 10-year freedom from reoperation for patients ≤65 years were 99%, 97%, and 93% versus 99%, 98%, and 96% in patients age >65 years, respectively (p = .24).

CONCLUSION

Patients with aortic root disease can be treated with acceptable perioperative outcomes, long-term survival, and low reoperation rates using a stentless porcine bioprothesis. It should be considered irrespective of age due to its excellent durability and freedom from anti-coagulation requirement.

Aortic valve replacement with biological prosthesis in patients aged 50-69 years

OBJECTIVES

There is no consensus regarding the use of biological or mechanical prostheses in patients 50-69 years of age. Previous studies have reported a survival advantage with mechanical valves. Our goal was to compare the long-term survival of patients in the intermediate age groups of 50-59 and 60-69 years receiving mechanical or biological aortic valve prostheses.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients in the age groups 50-59 years (n = 329) and 60-69 years (n = 648) who had a first-time isolated aortic valve replacement between 2000 and 2019. Kaplan-Meier and competing risk analyses were performed to compare survival, incidence of aortic valve reoperation, haemorrhagic complications and thromboembolic events for mechanical versus biological prostheses.

RESULTS

Patients aged 50-59 years with a biological prosthesis had a higher probability of aortic valve reintervention (26.3%, biological vs 2.6% mechanical; P < 0.001 at 15 years). The incidence of haemorrhagic complications or thromboembolic events was similar in the 2 groups. Patients aged 60-69 years with a mechanical prosthesis had a higher risk of haemorrhagic complications (6.9%, biological vs 16.2%, mechanical; P = 0.001 at 15 years). Biological prostheses had a higher overall probability of reintervention for valve dysfunction (20.9%, biological vs 4.8%, mechanical; P = 0.024). In both age groups, there was no difference in long-term survival between patients receiving a biological or a mechanical prosthesis.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in long-term survival between mechanical and biological prostheses for both age groups. Mechanical prostheses had a higher risk of bleeding in the 60-69-year group whereas biological valves had higher overall reintervention probability without an impact on long-term survival. It may be safe to use biological valves based on lifestyle choices for patients in the 50-69-year age group.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in low-risk patients: A case of rational over exuberance. The time is not now

BACKGROUND

Review of evidence and concerns, relating to extension of transcatheter aortic valve implantation usage to low-risk patients.

METHODS

Comprehensive literature review was conducted identifying articles relating to transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

RESULTS

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is effective in patients with aortic stenosis. Currently, long-term durability and cost-effectiveness are unproven, anticoagulation requirement undefined, permanent pacemaker implantation and paravalvular leak rates higher than following surgical aortic valve replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence supporting transcatheter aortic valve implantation usage in low-risk patients is insufficient. Extending use now, to this large young patient population is premature, and should be delayed.

Effect of Aortic Valve Type on Patients Who Undergo Type A Aortic Dissection Repair

Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is common in the setting of type A aortic dissection (TAAD) repair. Here, we evaluated the association between prosthesis choice and patient outcomes in an international patient cohort. We reviewed data from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) interventional cohort to examine the relationship between valve choice and short- and mid-term patient outcomes. Between January 1996 and March 2016, 1290 surgically treated patients with TAAD were entered into the IRAD interventional cohort. Of those, 364 patients undergoing TAAD repair underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR; mean age, 57 years). The mechanical valve cohort consisted of 189 patients, of which 151 (79.9%) had a root replacement. The nonmechanical valve cohort consisted of 5 patients who received homografts and 160 patients who received a biologic AVR, with a total of 118 (71.5%) patients who underwent root replacements. The mean follow-up time was 2.92 ± 1.75 years overall (2.46 ± 1.69 years for the mechanical valve cohort and 3.48 ± 1.8 years for the nonmechanical valve cohort). After propensity matching, Kaplan-Meier estimates of 4-year survival rates after surgery were 64.8% in the mechanical valve group compared with 74.7% in the nonmechanical valve group (p = 0.921). A stratified Cox model for 4-year mortality showed no difference in hazard between valve types after adjusting for the propensity score (p = 0.854). A biologic valve is a reasonable option in patients with TAAD who require AVR. Although this option avoids the potential risks of anticoagulation, long-term follow up is necessary to assess the effect of reoperations or transcatheter interventions for structural valve degeneration.

Predictors of Use and Outcomes of Mechanical Valve Replacement in the United States (2008-2017)

Background

Contemporary nationwide data on the use, predictors, and outcomes of mechanical valve replacement in patients less than 70 years of age are limited.

Methods and Results

We identified hospitalizations for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. The study's end points included predictors of mechanical valve replacement and risk‐adjusted in‐hospital mortality. Among 253 100 hospitalizations for AVR, the use rate of mechanical prosthesis decreased from 45.3% in 2008 to 17.0% in 2017. Among 284 962 hospitalizations for MVR, mechanical prosthesis use decreased from 59.5% in 2008 to 29.2% in 2017 (P for trend<0.001). In multilogistic regression analyses, female sex, prior sternotomy, prior defibrillator, and South/West geographic location were predictive of mechanical valve use. The presence of bicuspid valve was a negative predictor of mechanical AVR (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.66–0.69; P<0.001), whereas mitral stenosis was associated with higher mechanical MVR (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22–1.33; P<0.001). Unadjusted in‐hospital mortality decreased over time with AVR but not with MVR, regardless of prosthesis choice. Using years 2008 and 2009 as a reference, risk‐adjusted mortality also decreased over time with AVR but did not decrease after MVR.

Conclusions

There is a substantial decline in the use of mechanical valve replacement among patients aged ≤70 years in the United States. Long‐term durability data on bioprosthetic valve replacement are needed to better define the future role of mechanical valves in this age group.

The current diagnosis and treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis

Aortic valve stenosis (AS) is the third most frequent cardiovascular abnormality after coronary artery disease and hypertension. A bicuspid aortic valve is the most common cause for AS until seventh decade and calcific valve degeneration is responsible thereafter. In symptomatic patients, The risk of death increases from ≤1%/year to 2%/month. An echo valve area ≤1 cm², peak transaortic velocity ≥4 m/s, mean valve gradient ≥40 mmHg and/or computerized tomography valve calcium score >2000 Agatston units (AU) for males or more than 1200 AU for females indicate severe AS. AS stages and management are discussed. Valve replacement is based on surgical risk, valve durability/hemodynamics, need for anticoagulation and patient preferences. EuroSCORE ≥20%, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality ≥8% and co-morbidities indicate high surgical risk. Surgery is recommended for low-intermediate risk patients. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation is an alternative in older patients at low, intermediate, high or prohibitive risk. Transaortic valve implantation/replacement trials are summarized.

Prosthesis selection for aortic valve replacement with concomitant coronary artery bypass graft

BACKGROUND

The optimal prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) with concomitant coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is controversial. We aim to investigate postoperative outcomes in these patients with a bioprosthetic or mechanical prosthesis.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of 2485 patients aged 50-69 years who underwent AVR+CABG in Hubei province hospitals from 2002-2018. The Median follow-up duration was 6.5 years (0-15.8 years). Propensity score matching for 18 baseline characteristics yielded 346 patient pairs between bioprosthetic and mechanical prosthetic groups. Endpoints were mortality, stroke, major bleeding event, and reoperation.

RESULTS

No differences in survival, stroke, or overall reoperation rates were observed between the bioprosthetic and mechanical valve group. The 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to prosthesis failure/dysfunction was higher in the bioprosthetic group (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.26-5.88], P =0.011), whereas the 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to CAD progression/bypass failure was similar between two groups (HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.37-1.57], P =0.459). Mechanical valves were associated with a higher 15-year cumulative incidence of the major bleeding events compared with bioprosthesis (HR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.16-3.19], P =0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term survival, overall reoperation, or stroke incidence was comparable among the two groups, while patients with a mechanical valve showed a greater likelihood of major bleeding events. Regarding the limited durability of bioprostheses, a larger sample size followed for 15 or more years will be necessary to determine the optimal aortic valve prosthesis for patients aged 50 to 69 years undergoing concurrent AVR and CABG.

2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

This executive summary of the valvular heart disease guideline provides recommendations for clinicians to diagnose and manage valvular heart disease as well as supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1, 2010, to March 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Reports, and other selected database relevant to this guideline. Structure: Many recommendations from the earlier valvular heart disease guidelines have been updated with new evidence and provides newer options for diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease. This summary includes only the recommendations from the full guideline which focus on diagnostic work-up, the timing and choice of surgical and catheter interventions, and recommendations for medical therapy. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in developing these guidelines.

Similar long-term survival after isolated bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement: A propensity-matched analysis

OBJECTIVES

Improved durability and preference to avoid anticoagulation have led to increasing use of bioprostheses in younger patients despite the need for eventual reoperation. Therefore, we compared in-hospital complications, reoperation, and survival after bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

From January 1990 to January 2020, 6143 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at Cleveland Clinic; 637 patients received a mechanical prosthesis and 5506 a bioprosthesis. Propensity matching identified 527 well-matched pairs (83% of possible matches) for comparison of perioperative outcomes. The average age of patients was 54 years in the bioprosthesis group and 55 years in the mechanical prosthesis group. Random Forest machine-learning analysis was performed to compare survival using the entire cohort of 6143 patients.

RESULTS

Among matched patients, major in-hospital complications, including stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and reoperation for bleeding, were similar, as was in-hospital mortality (2 in the bioprosthesis group [0.38%] vs 3 in the mechanical prosthesis group [0.57%]; P > .9). Patients receiving a bioprosthesis had shorter hospital stays (median 6 vs 7 days, P < .0001). Fifty-one patients (32% at 14 years) in the bioprosthesis group and 17 patients in the mechanical prosthesis group (8% at 14 years) underwent reoperation (P [log-rank] < .0001); 5-year survival after reoperation was 85% versus 82% (P = .6). Risk-adjusted Random Forest prediction of 18-year survival was 60% in the bioprosthetic group and 58% in the mechanical prosthesis group.

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic valve bioprostheses are associated with excellent short-term outcomes and 18-year survival similar to that of patients receiving mechanical valves. Reoperation does not adversely affect survival. These results suggest that risk for reoperation alone should not deter the use of bioprostheses in younger patients.

Biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in non-elderly patients: a single-centre analysis of clinical outcomes and quality of life

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.

Age-stratified outcomes of bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacements in an Australian cohort of 13 377 patients

OBJECTIVES

To quantify age-stratified outcomes of bioprosthetic valve (BV) and mechanical valve (MV) surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in Australian patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study using population-based linked hospital morbidity and mortality data.

SETTING

Public and private hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 18 years and over undergoing AVR from 2001 to 2013, stratified by age (18-64 years; 65+ years).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Age-standardized index AVR rates; rates and multivariable-adjusted (age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index) incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for reoperation, incident cardiovascular events (hospitalization or death for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, major hemorrhage or thromboembolism) and mortality (cardiovascular and all-cause).

RESULTS

Our cohort comprised 13 377 patients, of whom 3464 (26%) were aged 18-64 years. Annual age-standardized AVR rates increased by 2.7% with BV implants increasing in both age groups. After 5 years of follow-up, patients implanted with BV had lower rates of stroke (IRR: 0.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.60) and hemorrhage (IRR: 0.36, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.50). Among patients 65+ years, those implanted with BV had lower rates of AMI, hemorrhage, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality than those implanted with MV (IRR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; IRR: 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; IRR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.92 and IRR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.97, respectively). After 6-10 years of follow-up, reoperation rates among patients 18-64 years were markedly higher in those implanted with BV compared with MV (IRR: 5.48, 95% CI 2.38 to 12.62) and rates of AMI were lower among patients implanted with BV compared with MV (IRR: 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.94). Among patients 65+ years rates of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality remained significantly lower for patients implanted with BV compared with MV.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides real-world evidence of AVR use and outcomes. Use of BV implants is increasing irrespective of age. Valve choice in younger patients requires thorough evaluation of patient factors influencing both short-term outcomes and longer-term risks of reoperation, stroke and hemorrhage.

Outcomes of tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients 50 to 70 years of age

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.

Durability of bioprosthetic aortic valves in patients under the age of 60 years - rationale and design of the international INDURE registry

BACKGROUND

There is an ever-growing number of patients requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR). Limited data is available on the long-term outcomes and structural integrity of bioprosthetic valves in younger patients undergoing surgical AVR.

METHODS

The INSPIRIS RESILIA Durability Registry (INDURE) is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, international registry with a follow-up of 5 years to assess clinical outcomes of patients younger than 60 years who undergo surgical AVR using the INSPIRIS RESILIA aortic valve. INDURE will be conducted across 20-22 sites in Europe and Canada and intends to enrol minimum of 400 patients. Patients will be included if they are scheduled to undergo AVR with or without concomitant root replacement and/or coronary bypass surgery. The primary objectives are to 1) determine VARC-2 defined time-related valve safety at one-year (depicted as freedom from events) and 2) determine freedom from stage 3 structural valve degeneration (SVD) presenting as morphological abnormalities and severe haemodynamic valve degeneration at 5 years. Secondary objectives include the assessment of the haemodynamic performance of the valve, all stages of SVD, potential valve-in-valve procedures, clinical outcomes (in terms of New York Heart Association [NYHA] function class and freedom from valve-related rehospitalisation) and change in patient quality-of-life.

DISCUSSION

INDURE is a prospective, multicentre registry in Europe and Canada, which will provide much needed data on the long-term performance of bioprosthetic valves in general and the INSPIRIS RESILIA valve in particular. The data may help to gather a deeper understanding of the longevity of bioprosthetic valves and may expand the use of bioprosthetic valves in patients under the age of 60 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03666741 (registration received September, 12th, 2018).

Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with infective endocarditis

OBJECTIVES

The optimal choice of valve prosthesis in surgical aortic valve replacement for infective endocarditis (IE) is controversial. We studied outcomes after mechanical versus biological prosthetic valve surgical aortic valve replacement in IE patients.

METHODS

All patients with native-valve IE aged 16-70 years undergoing mechanical or biological surgical aortic valve replacement in Finland, between 2004 and 2014, were retrospectively studied (n = 213). Outcomes were all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke, major bleeding and aortic valve reoperation at 1 year and 5 years. Results were adjusted for baseline features (age, sex, comorbidity burden, atrial fibrillation, valvular stenosis, concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, extension, urgency, year and centre of operation). Median follow-up was 5 years.

RESULTS

The 5-year mortality rate was 19.0% with mechanical prostheses and 34.8% with biological prostheses [hazard ratio (HR) 0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.92; P = 0.03]. Ischaemic stroke rates were 8.3% with mechanical prostheses and 16.8% with biological prostheses at 5 years (HR 0.21, CI 0.06-0.79; P = 0.01). Results were comparable in patients aged 16-59 and 60-70 years (interaction P = 0.84). Major bleeding within 5 years was similar between mechanical (11.3%) and biological valve (13.4%) groups (P = 0.95) with comparable rates of both gastrointestinal and intracranial bleeds. Reoperation rates at 5 years were 5.0% for mechanical prostheses and 9.2% for biological prostheses (P = 0.14). The 1-year ischaemic stroke rate was lower with mechanical prostheses (3.6% vs 11.6%, P =0.03), whereas mortality, major bleeding and reoperation rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of mechanical aortic valve is associated with lower mid-term mortality compared to biological prosthesis in patients with native-valve IE aged ≤70 years. Our results do not support the routine choice of a biological aortic valve prosthesis in this patient group.

Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in <50 Years Old Patients - Where is the Evidence?

Aortic valve disease is one of the most common valvular heart diseases in the cardiovascular category. Surgical replacement of the diseased aortic valve remains the definitive intervention for most diseases.

There is a clear consensus that in young patients who require aortic valve replacement, a mechanical prosthesis is the preferred choice due to its durable prosthesis without fear of wear and tear over time. However, this comes at the expense of increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events; in addition, there is a lack of strict evidence in using bioprosthesis in patients younger than 50 years. The objective of this review article is to assess the current evidence behind using bioprosthetic aortic valve in this young cohort.