Biological or mechanical prostheses for isolated aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50-65 years: the ANDALVALVE study.
Age Factors
Aged
Aortic Valve
/ surgery
Bioprosthesis
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Heart Valve Diseases
/ surgery
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation
/ methods
Humans
Incidence
Male
Middle Aged
Postoperative Complications
/ epidemiology
Prognosis
Propensity Score
Prosthesis Design
Retrospective Studies
Risk Factors
Spain
/ epidemiology
Survival Rate
/ trends
Aortic valve replacement
Bioprostheses
Long-term survival
Mechanical prostheses
Propensity score
Journal
European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery : official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery
ISSN: 1873-734X
Titre abrégé: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8804069
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2019
01 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
11
09
2018
revised:
07
11
2018
accepted:
22
11
2018
pubmed:
5
1
2019
medline:
2
10
2020
entrez:
5
1
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The decision about whether to use a biological or a mechanical prosthesis for aortic valve replacement remains controversial in patients between 50 and 65 years of age and has yet to be addressed in a Mediterranean population. This research aimed to analyse long-term survival and major morbidity rates (30-day mortality, stroke, any prosthetic reoperation and major bleeding) within this population. Our multicentre observational retrospective study included all subjects aged 50-65 years who had a primary isolated aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis at 7 public hospitals from Andalusia (Spain) between 2000 and 2015. Concomitant surgery, reoperations and endocarditis were the exclusion criteria. A total of 1443 patients were enrolled in the study (272 with biological and 1171 with mechanical valves). Multivariate analyses including a 2:1 propensity score matching (506 mechanical and 257 biological prostheses) were conducted. Bioprostheses were implanted in 18.8% (n = 272): 35% were women; the mean EuroSCORE-I was 3%. The mean follow-up was 8.1 ± 4.9 years in a matched sample: 8.8 ± 4.9 years in those receiving a mechanical vs 7.1 ± 4.5 years in those receiving a biological prosthesis (P = 0.001). In the paired sample, the 15-year survival rate was 73% in those who had a biological vs 76% in those who had a mechanical valve [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.20; P = 0.159]. No significant differences were observed in patients ≥55 years old (74% of 15-year survival in both groups: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56-1.34; P = 0.527). A higher rate of major bleeding was found in patients with a mechanical prosthesis (P = 0.004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among those with a biological prosthesis (P = 0.01). Long-term survival was comparable in patients above 55 years of age. Mechanical prostheses were associated with more major bleeding and bioprostheses, with more reoperations. A bioprosthesis in patients above 55 years old is a reasonable choice. NCT03239509.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30608571
pii: 5272476
doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy459
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03239509']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1160-1167Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.