EARLY AND MIDTERM OUTCOMES FOLLOWING AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT WITH MECHANICAL VERSUS BIOPROSTHETIC VALVES IN PATIENTS AGED 50 TO 70 YEARS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48729/pjctvs.28Abstract
Objectives: To compare 7-year survival and freedom from reoperation, as well as early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes, after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves in patients aged 50-70 years.
Methods: single-center retrospective cohort study including adults aged 50-70 years who underwent SAVR in 2012 with a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve. Median follow-up was 7 years. Univariable analyses were performed using Kaplan- -Meier curves and Log-Rank tests for survival and freedom from reoperation analyses. Multivariable time-to-event analyses were conducted using Cox Regression.
Results: Of a total of 193 patients, 76 (39.4%) received mechanical valves and 117 (60.6%) received bioprosthetic valves. A trend for better survival was found for mechanical prostheses when adjusting for EuroSCORE II (HR: 0.35; 95%CI: 0.12-1.02, p=0.054), but using a backward stepwise Cox regression prosthesis type was not retained by the model as an independent predictor of survival. Moreover, mechanical prostheses showed trends for higher freedom from reoperation (100% vs. 95.5%, Log-Rank, p=0.076), higher median EuroSCORE II (2.52% vs. 1.95%, p=0.06) and early mortality (7.9% vs. 2.6%, p=0.086). However, after adjusting for EuroSCORE II, there was no significant difference in early mortality (OR: 2.3, 95%CI: 0.5-10.5, p=0.272). Regarding hemodynamic performance at follow-up echocardiogram, there were no differences other than left ventricular mass regression, which was not as pronounced in the mechanical group (-12% vs. -21%, p=0.002).
Conclusion: Mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valves prostheses showed similar mid-term survival in the 50-70 age group. Further prospective and larger studies are needed to provide evidence-based recommendations on this topic.
Downloads
References
Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(36):2739-2786. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391
Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2017;135(25):e1159-e1195. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000503
Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M, et al. Aortic Valve Replacement. A Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Versus Biological Valves in Patients Ages 55 to 70 Years. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(20):1862-1868. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.032
Chiang YP, Chikwe J, Moskowitz AJ, Itagaki S, Adams DH, Egorova NN. Survival and long-term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2014;312(13):1323-1329. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12679
Mcclure RS, Mcgurk S, Cevasco M, et al. Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position : A propensity-matched analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;148(5):1931-1939. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.12.042
Iribarne A, Leavitt BJ, Robich MP, et al. Tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in younger patients: A multicenter analysis. In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Vol 158. Elsevier Inc.; 2019:1529-1538.e2. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2019.02.076
Brown ML, Schaff H V, Lahr BD, et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: Improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;135(4):878-884. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.10.065
Glaser N, Jackson V, Holzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J. 2016;37(34):2658-2667. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehv580
Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1847-1857. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1613792
Rodríguez-Caulo EA, Otero-Forero JJ, Sánchez-Espín G, et al. 15 years outcomes following bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50–65 years with isolated aortic stenosis. Cir Cardiovasc. 2018;25(3):135-140. doi:10.1016/j.circv.2018.03.002
Diaz R, Hernandez-vaquero D, Alvarez-cabo R. Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic valve prosthesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.10.146
Capodanno D, Petronio AS, Prendergast B, et al. Standardized definitions of structural deterioration and valve failure in assessing long-term durability of transcatheter and surgical aortic bioprosthetic valves: A consensus statement from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interven. Eur
Heart J. 2017. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx303
Wang L, Han QQ, Qiao F, et al. Performance of euroSCORE II in patients who have undergone heart valve surgery: A multicentre study in a Chinese population. Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg. 2014;45(2):359-364. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezt264
Kytö V, Sipilä J, Ahtela E, Rautava P, Gunn J. Mechanical versus biological prostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50-70. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019. doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.10.027
Anselmi A, Flecher E, Chabanne C, et al. Long-term follow-up of bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients aged ≤60 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;154(5):1534-1541.e4. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.05.103
Davierwala PM, Borger MA, David TE, Rao V, Maganti M, Yau TM. Reoperation is not an independent predictor of mortality during aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.09.022
Ali A, Patel A, Ali Z, et al. Enhanced left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic stenosis is associated with improved long-term survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011;142(2):285-291. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.08.084
John Camm A, Lip GYH, De Caterina R, et al. 2012 focused update of the ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2012. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehs253
Siregar S, de Heer F, Groenwold RHH, et al. Trends and outcomes of valve surgery: 16-year results of Netherlands Cardiac Surgery National Database. Eur J Cardio-thoracic Surg. 2014;46(3):386-397. doi:10.1093/ejcts/ezu017
Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J. 2017;38(28):2183-2191. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx141
Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149(5):1262-1269.e3. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.01.052
Li KYC. Bioprosthetic Heart Valves: Upgrading a 50-Year Old Technology. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2019;6(April):1-6. doi:10.3389/fcvm.2019.00047
Ye J, Cheung A, Yamashita M, et al. Transcatheter aortic and mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves an 8-year single-center experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(13):1735-1744. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2015.08.012
