Abstract
OBJECTIVES
The aims of this study were to evaluate and compare the outcomes after pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) with a mechanical prosthesis (MP) and a bioprosthesis (BP).
METHODS
From 2004 through 2017, a total of 131 patients, who had already been repaired for tetralogy or Fallot or its variants, underwent their first PVR with an MP or a BP. Outcomes of interests were prosthesis failure (stenosis >3.5 m/s, regurgitation >mild or infective endocarditis) and reintervention.
RESULTS
The median age at PVR was 19 years. BP and MP were used in 88 (67.2%) and 43 (32.8%) patients, respectively. The median follow-up duration was 7.4 years, and the 10-year survival rate was 96.4%. Risk factors for prosthesis failure were smaller body surface area [hazard ratio (HR) 0.23 per 1 m2, P = 0.047] and smaller prosthesis size (HR 0.73 per 1 mm, P = 0.039). Risk factors for prosthesis reintervention were smaller body surface area (HR 0.11 per 1 m2, P = 0.011) and prosthesis size (HR 0.67 per 1 mm, P = 0.044). Probability of prosthesis failure and reintervention at 10 years were 24.6% (19.5% in BP vs 34.8% in MP, P = 0.34) and 7.8% (5.6% in BP vs 11.9% in MP, P = 0.079), respectively. Anticoagulation-related major thromboembolic events were observed in 4 patients receiving an MP.
CONCLUSIONS
MP might not be superior to BP in terms of prosthesis failure or reintervention. MP should be carefully considered for highly selected patients in the era of transcatheter PVR.
Editorial commentA mechanical prosthesis for pulmonary valve replacement?
