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

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

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

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery ◽

10.1093/ejcts/ezaa429 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Pietro Giorgio Malvindi ◽

Suvitesh Luthra ◽

Carlo Olevano ◽

Hamdy Salem ◽

Mariusz Kowalewski ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Age Groups ◽

Thromboembolic Events ◽

Mechanical Prosthesis ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival ◽

Mechanical Prostheses ◽

Biological Prostheses

Abstract 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.

Download Full-text

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

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm10235554 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (23) ◽

pp. 5554

Author(s):

Keti Vitanova ◽

Felix Wirth ◽

Johannes Boehm ◽

Melchior Burri ◽

Rüdiger Lange ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Mechanical Prosthesis ◽

Term Survival ◽

Younger Patients ◽

Group A ◽

Group B

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

The impact of prosthesis–patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 34 observational studies comprising 27 186 patients with 133 141 patient-years

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/eurheartj/ehs003 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 33 (12) ◽

pp. 1518-1529 ◽

Cited By ~ 238

Author(s):

Stuart J. Head ◽

Mostafa M. Mokhles ◽

Ruben L.J. Osnabrugge ◽

Philippe Pibarot ◽

Michael J. Mack ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival ◽

The Impact

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

The Prospects of Secondary Moderate Mitral Regurgitation after Aortic Valve Replacement —Meta-Analysis

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph17197335 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 17 (19) ◽

pp. 7335

Author(s):

Ilija Bilbija ◽

Milos Matkovic ◽

Marko Cubrilo ◽

Nemanja Aleksic ◽

Jelena Milin Lazovic ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Mitral Regurgitation ◽

Aortic Stenosis ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Reverse Remodeling ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival

Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis represents one of the most frequent surgical procedures on heart valves. These patients often have concomitant mitral regurgitation. To reveal whether the moderate mitral regurgitation will improve after aortic valve replacement alone, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We identified 27 studies with 4452 patients that underwent aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis and had co-existent mitral regurgitation. Primary end point was the impact of aortic valve replacement on the concomitant mitral regurgitation. Secondary end points were the analysis of the left ventricle reverse remodeling and long-term survival. Our results showed that there was significant improvement in mitral regurgitation postoperatively (RR, 1.65; 95% CI 1.36–2.00; p < 0.00001) with the average decrease of 0.46 (WMD; 95% CI 0.35–0.57; p < 0.00001). The effect is more pronounced in the elderly population. Perioperative mortality was higher (p < 0.0001) and long-term survival significantly worse (p < 0.00001) in patients that had moderate/severe mitral regurgitation preoperatively. We conclude that after aortic valve replacement alone there are fair chances but for only slight improvement in concomitant mitral regurgitation. The secondary moderate mitral regurgitation should be addressed at the time of aortic valve replacement. A more conservative approach should be followed for elderly and high-risk patients.

Download Full-text