Long-term evaluation of biological versus mechanical prosthesis use at reoperative aortic valve replacement

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.

Download Full-text

Determining Which Prosthetic to Use During Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Younger than 70 Years: A Systematic Review of the Literature

The Heart Surgery Forum ◽

10.1532/hsf.2131 ◽

1969 ◽

Vol 22 (2) ◽

pp. E070-E081 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Philip Borger ◽

Eric J Charles ◽

Eric D Smith ◽

J Hunter Mehaffey ◽

Robert B Hawkins ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Mechanical Prosthesis ◽

Term Survival ◽

Younger Patients ◽

Long Term Survival ◽

Mechanical Prostheses

Background: The choice of bioprosthesis versus mechanical prosthesis in patients aged less than 70 years undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains controversial, with guidelines disparate in their recommendations. The objective of this study was to explore outcomes after AVR for various age ranges based on type of prosthesis. Methods: A systematic review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Instructions for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using Medline (PubMed), Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases. Rates of long-term survival (primary outcome), reoperation, major bleeding, thromboembolism, stroke, structural valve deterioration, and endocarditis were compared between subjects receiving biologic and mechanical prostheses. Findings were grouped into patients aged <60 years, aged ≤65 years, and finally aged <70 years. Results: A total of 19 studies met inclusion criteria. Seven evaluated patients aged <60 years, 4 of which found mechanical prosthesis patients to have higher long-term survival, whereas the remaining studies found no difference. Eight additional studies included patients aged 65 years or younger, and 9 studies included patients aged <70 years. The former found no difference in survival between prosthesis groups, whereas the latter favored mechanical prostheses in 3 studies. Bleeding, thromboembolism, and stroke were more prevalent in patients with a mechanical prosthesis, whereas reoperation was more common in those receiving a bioprosthesis. Conclusions: Published literature does not preclude the use of bioprostheses for AVR in younger patients. As new valves are developed, the use of bioprosthetic aortic valves in younger patients will likely continue to expand. Clinical trials are needed to provide surgeons with more accurate guidelines.

Download Full-text

Long term results after prospectively randomized stentless versus conventional xenograft aortic valve replacement

The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon ◽

10.1055/s-2008-1037702 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 56 (S 1) ◽

Author(s):

S Lehmann ◽

T Walther ◽

J Kempfert ◽

S Leontyev ◽

J Garbade ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Long Term Results

Download Full-text

Pulmonary Homografts for Aortic Valve Replacement: Long-term Comparison with Aortic Grafts

The Heart Surgery Forum ◽

10.1532/hsf98.20101162 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 14 (4) ◽

pp. 237 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ferdinand Vogt ◽

Anke Kowert ◽

Andres Beiras-Fernandez ◽

Martin Oberhoffer ◽

Ingo Kaczmarek ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Long Term Results ◽

Rank Test ◽

Aortic Graft ◽

Valve Prostheses ◽

Retrospective Comparative Study

Objective: The use of homografts for aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an alternative to mechanical or biological valve prostheses, especially in younger patients. This retrospective comparative study evaluated our single-center long-term results, with a focus on the different origins of the homografts.Methods: Since 1992, 366 adult patients have undergone AVR with homografts at our center. We compared 320 homografts of aortic origin and 46 homografts of pulmonary origin. The grafts were implanted via either a subcoronary technique or the root replacement technique. We performed a multivariate analysis to identify independent factors that influence survival. Freedom from reintervention and survival rates were calculated as cumulative events according to the Kaplan-Meier method, and differences were tested with the log-rank test.Results: Overall mortality within 1 year was 6.5% (21/320) in the aortic graft group and 17.4% (8/46) in the pulmonary graft group. In the pulmonary graft group, 4 patients died from valve-related complications, 1 patient died after additional heterotopic heart transplantation, and 1 patient who entered with a primary higher risk died from a prosthesis infection. Two patients died from non-valve-related causes. During the long-term follow-up, the 15-year survival rate was 79.9% for patients in the aortic graft group and 68.7% for patients in the pulmonary graft group (P = .049). The rate of freedom from reoperation was 77.7% in the aortic graft group and 57.4% in the pulmonary graft group (P < .001). The reasons for homograft explantation were graft infections (aortic graft group, 5.0%; pulmonary graft group, 6.5%) and degeneration (aortic graft group, 7.5%; pulmonary graft group, 32.6%).Conclusion: Our study demonstrated superior rates of survival and freedom from reintervention after AVR with aortic homografts. Implantation with a pulmonary graft was associated with a higher risk of redo surgery, owing to earlier degenerative alterations.

Download Full-text

B-PO04-029 PERMANENT PACEMAKER IMPLANTATION RATE AND LONG TERM VENTRICULAR PACING PERCENTAGE AFTER TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VS. SURGICAL AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT

Heart Rhythm ◽

10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.06.725 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (8) ◽

pp. S291

Author(s):

Jennifer Riggs ◽

Qiuqing Wang ◽

Kathy Wolski ◽

Wael A. Jaber ◽

Amar Krishnaswamy ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Pacemaker Implantation ◽

Implantation Rate ◽

Permanent Pacemaker ◽

Ventricular Pacing ◽

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Permanent Pacemaker Implantation

Download Full-text

Long-term survival after Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve replacement in Western Denmark: a multi-centre observational study

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery ◽

10.1186/s13019-021-01506-x ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Lytfi Krasniqi ◽

Mads P. Kronby ◽

Lars P. S. Riber

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Significant Risk ◽

Valve Prosthesis ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival ◽

All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background This study describes the long-term survival, risk of reoperation and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing solitary surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CE-P) bioprosthetic in Western Denmark. The renewed interest in SAVR is based on the questioning regarding the long-term survival since new aortic replacement technique such as transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) probably have shorter durability, why assessment of long-term survival could be a key issue for patients. Methods From November 1999 to November 2013 a cohort of a total of 1604 patients with a median age of 73 years (IQR: 69–78) undergoing solitary SAVR with CE-P in Western Denmark was obtained November 2018 from the Western Danish Heart Registry (WDHR). The primary endpoint was long-term survival from all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were survival free from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE), risk of reoperation, cause of late death, patient-prothesis mismatch, risk of AMI, stroke, pacemaker or ICD implantation and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF). Time-to-event analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier curve, cumulative incidence function was performed with Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. Cox regression was applied to detect risk factors for death and reoperation. Results In-hospital mortality was 2.7% and 30-day mortality at 3.4%. The 5-, 10- and 15-year survival from all-cause mortality was 77, 52 and 24%, respectively. Survival without MACCE was 80% after 10 years. Significant risk factors of mortality were small valves, smoking and EuroSCORE II ≥4%. The risk of reoperation was < 5% after 7.5 years and significant risk factors were valve prosthesis-patient mismatch and EuroSCORE II ≥4%. Conclusions Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve shows a very satisfying long-term survival. Future research should aim to investigate biological valves long-term durability for comparison of different SAVR to different TAVR in long perspective.

Download Full-text