Background: Aortic valve disease(AVD) accounts for 33 % of valvular heart disease(VHD) but causes over 60 % of VHD mortality. For surgical AVR, mechanical valves are recommended for patients <50 years old and bioprosthetic valves for those >70 years old.

Objectives: To investigate the long-term differences following AV replacement(AVR) comparing bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients aged 50-70.

Methods: 4,927 patients underwent AVR, 744 of which were propensity-matched 2:1 for bioprosthetic and mechanical valves. Outcomes included mortality, morbidity, and rates of reoperation.

Results: The average age of the propensity-matched groups was 57 and 56.7 years, and female sex accounted for 26.4 % and 25.0 % for the bioprosthetic and mechanical valve groups, respectively. Other baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar between the groups. There were no deaths at 30 days and complication rates did not differ between groups(p > 0.05). Mortality at 1, 5, and 15 years was similar between groups. Reoperation rates at 5 and 10 years did not significantly differ between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves(p = 0.84, p = 0.31), although at 15-year follow-up, patients with bioprosthetic valves were more likely to require reoperation(21.2 % versus 9.7 %, adjusted hazard ratio 3.65, 95 % confidence interval 1.07-12.5, p = 0.0.39).

Conclusions: Patients receiving AVR from 50 to 70 years old have similar long-term outcomes irrespective of whether they received bioprosthetic or mechanical valves, with only reoperation being significantly different at 15 years follow-up. With low rates of reoperation, mortality, and avoidance of anticoagulation, bioprosthetic valves are a reasonable option for patients 50-70 years old, although mechanical valves still provide a durability benefit for young patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.09.016DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bioprosthetic mechanical
24
mechanical valves
24
long-term outcomes
8
aortic valve
8
bioprosthetic
8
mechanical
8
valves
8
bioprosthetic valves
8
patients
7
years
7

Similar Publications

Background: Lifetime treatment of aortic valve disease is a matter of increasing debate. Although the risks of a second aortic valve intervention are recognized, little attention has been given to the challenges of a third.

Objectives: This study delves into the clinical characteristics, indications, and outcomes of patients undergoing 3 aortic valve interventions.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Aortic valve leaflet assessment to inform novel bioinspired materials: Understanding the impact of collagen fibres on the tissue's mechanical behaviour.

J Mech Behav Biomed Mater

December 2024

Trinity Centre for Biomedical Engineering, Trinity Biomedical Sciences Institute, Trinity College Dublin, 2, Dublin, Ireland; Discipline of Mechanical, Manufacturing, and Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, 2, Dublin, Ireland; Advanced Materials and Bioengineering Research Centre (AMBER), Trinity College Dublin, Ireland. Electronic address:

Aortic stenosis is a prevalent disease that is treated with either mechanical or bioprosthetic valve replacement devices. However, these implants can experience problems with either functionality in the case of mechanical valves or long-term durability in the case of bioprosthetic valves. To enhance next generation prosthetic valves, such as biomimetic polymeric valves, an improved understanding of the native aortic valve leaflet structure and mechanical response is required to provide much needed benchmarks for future device development.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Options for pediatric heart valve replacement.

Future Cardiol

January 2025

Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Arkansas Children's Hospital, Little Rock, AR, USA.

Heart valve replacement is indicated for children with irreparable heart valve disease. These replacements come in a variety of forms including mechanical, xenograft tissue, allograft tissue, and autograft tissue valves. These options each have unique benefits and risks profiles.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Reintervention after aortic root replacement with allograft, xenograft, and stented bioprosthetic valves.

Cardiovasc Revasc Med

December 2024

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America; Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, United States of America. Electronic address:

Background: There has been a significant increase in the utilization of non-mechanical valves in the aortic position over time. However, details in reinterventions after aortic root replacement (ARR) with non-mechanical prosthesis were limited in the literature, despite the potential importance of reinterventions in the lifetime management of aortic valve disease.

Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study, identifying all patients who underwent ARR with allograft, xenografts, and stented bioprosthetic valved conduit from 2010 to 2020.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Valvular heart disease (VHD) poses a significant threat to human health, and the transcatheter heart valve replacement (THVR) is the best treatment for severe VHD. Currently, the glutaraldehyde cross-linked commercial bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs) remain the first choice for THVR. However, the cross-linking by glutaraldehyde exhibits several drawbacks, including calcification, inflammatory reactions, and difficult endothelialization, which limits the longevity and applicability of BHVs.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!