Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018; 66(04): 313-321
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1602825
Original Cardiovascular
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Survival and Long-Term Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 55 to 65 Years

Shilpa Alex
1   College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
,
Brett Hiebert
2   Cardiac Sciences Program, St. Boniface Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
,
Rakesh Arora
2   Cardiac Sciences Program, St. Boniface Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
3   Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
,
Alan Menkis
2   Cardiac Sciences Program, St. Boniface Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
3   Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
,
Pallav Shah
2   Cardiac Sciences Program, St. Boniface Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
3   Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by the Department of Surgery Geographical Full-Time (GFT) surgeon's research grant from clinical earnings of GFT surgeons at the University of Manitoba e-Health Services.
Further Information

Publication History

20 February 2017

30 March 2017

Publication Date:
16 May 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Abstract

Background This study aims to compare the outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical and biological valves in middle-aged patients (55–65 years) to determine the impact on long-term mortality and morbidity.

Methods A retrospective analysis of 373 patients between 55 and 65 years of age who received a primary AVR with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass graft between April 1995 and March 2014. Propensity matching yielded 118 patient pairs in the mechanical and biological valve cohorts.

Results Median follow-up time was 6.9 years. No differences in long-term survival or a composite outcome of stroke, bleeding, and endocarditis (major adverse prosthesis-related event; MAPE) were observed in patients receiving biological versus mechanical valves. Actuarial 15-year survival was 46.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 28.8–62.3%) in the biological valve group versus 60.6% (95% CI, 47.5–71.4%) in the mechanical valve group (hazard ratio, 1.16 [95%CI, 0.69–1.94], p = 0.58). The 15-year cumulative incidence of MAPE was 53.3% (95% CI, 33.7–69.4%) for biological valves versus 24.5% (95% CI, 16.2–33.8%) for mechanical valves (hazard ratio, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.37–1.14], p = 0.12). The 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation was higher in the bioprosthetic group (26.0% [95% CI, 14.0–39.8%] vs. 5.4% [95% CI, 2.0–11.4%]; hazard ratio 0.24 [95% CI, 0.09–0.68] p < 0.01).

Conclusion There is no difference in survival and MAPE at 15 years between biological and mechanical valves. The risk of reoperation was significantly higher in the biological valve group and may affect valve choice in middle-aged patients.

Keywords

aortic valve replacement - CABG - heart valve prosthesis - outcomes - propensity matching
 

  • References

  • 1 Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F. , et al; Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012). Eur Heart J 2012; 33 (19) 2451-2496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO. , et al; American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 63 (22) 2438-2488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 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 2014; 312 (13) 1323-1329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Roumieh M, Ius F, Tudorache I. , et al. Comparison between biological and mechanical aortic valve prostheses in middle-aged patients matched through propensity score analysis: long-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2015; 48 (01) 129-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 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 2014; 148 (05) 1931-1939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Stoica S, Goldsmith K, Demiris N. , et al. Microsimulation and clinical outcomes analysis support a lower age threshold for use of biological valves. Heart 2010; 96 (21) 1730-1736
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Carrier M, Pellerin M, Perrault LP. , et al. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical and biologic prosthesis in middle-aged patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2001; 71 (5, Suppl): S253-S256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Khan SS, Trento A, DeRobertis M. , et al. Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 122 (02) 257-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lund O, Bland M. Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2006; 132 (01) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Peterseim DS, Cen YY, Cheruvu S. , et al. Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999; 117 (05) 890-897
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Brown ML, Schaff HV, 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 (04) 878-884 , discussion 884
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Weber A, Noureddine H, Englberger L. , et al. Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012; 144 (05) 1075-1083
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Badhwar V, Ofenloch JC, Rovin JD, van Gelder HM, Jacobs JP. Noninferiority of closely monitored mechanical valves to bioprostheses overshadowed by early mortality benefit in younger patients. Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 93 (03) 748-753
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36 (04) 1152-1158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hammermeister KE, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Oprian C, Kim T, Rahimtoola S. ; Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. N Engl J Med 1993; 328 (18) 1289-1296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, Prescott RJ, Miller HC. Twelve-year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. N Engl J Med 1991; 324 (09) 573-579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ. , et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003; 89 (07) 715-721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Zhao DF, Seco M, Wu JJ. , et al. Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Middle-Aged Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2016; 102 (01) 315-327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Chikwe J, Filsoufi F, Carpentier AF. Prosthetic valve selection for middle-aged patients with aortic stenosis. Nat Rev Cardiol 2010; 7 (12) 711-719
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Sheng S. , et al. Predictors of long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (the ASCERT study). Circulation 2012; 125 (12) 1491-1500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Akins CW, Miller DC, Turina MI. , et al; Councils of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery; Society of Thoracic Surgeons; European Assoication for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery; Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for Standardizing Definitions of Prosthetic Heart Valve Morbidity. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008; 135 (04) 732-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Thourani VH, Kodali S, Makkar RR. , et al. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus surgical valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients: a propensity score analysis. Lancet 2016; 387 (10034): 2218-2225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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; 131 (02) 329-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar