Age-Based Outcomes after Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement with Bioprosthetic versus Mechanical Valves.

aortic valve cardiac surgical procedures cardiovascular surgical procedures heart valve prosthesis implantation heart valves

Journal

The American journal of cardiology
ISSN: 1879-1913
Titre abrégé: Am J Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0207277

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 02 06 2024
revised: 30 06 2024
accepted: 08 07 2024
medline: 13 7 2024
pubmed: 13 7 2024
entrez: 12 7 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Recommendations for prosthesis type in older patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established, albeit undervalidated. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after bioprosthetic vs mechanical SAVR across various age groups. This was a retrospective study using an institutional SAVR database. All patients who underwent isolated SAVR were compared across valve types and age strata (<65 years, 65-75 years, >75 years). Patients who underwent concomitant operations, aortic root interventions, or prior aortic valve replacement were excluded. Objective survival and aortic valve reinterventions were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariate regression were performed. A total of 1,847 patients underwent SAVR from 2010-2023. 1,452 (78.6%) patients received bioprosthetic valves while 395 (21.4%) received mechanical valves. Of those who received bioprosthetic valves, 349 (24.0%) were <65 years old, 627 (43.2%) were 65-75 years old, and 476 (32.8%%) were older than 75. For mechanical valve patients, 308 (78.0%) were <65 years, 84 (21.3%) were between 65-75 years, and 3 (0.7%) were >75 years. Median follow-up in the total cohort was 6.2 [2.6-8.9] years. No statistically significant differences were observed in early-term Kaplan-Meier survival estimates between SAVR valve types in all age groups. However, cumulative incidence estimates of aortic valve reintervention were significantly higher in patients under 65 who received bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves, with 5-year reintervention rates of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively (p=0.002). On competing risk analysis for valve reintervention, bioprosthetic valves were significantly associated with an increased hazard of AV reintervention (HR, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.73-6.49; p<0.001). In conclusion, SAVR with bioprosthetic valves (particularly in patients <65 years) was comparable in survival to mechanical valve SAVR but significantly associated with increased valve reintervention rates.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38996898
pii: S0002-9149(24)00510-1
doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.07.004
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest IS receives institutional research support from Abbott, Atricure, Artivion, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Terumo Aortic. None of these are related to this manuscript.

Auteurs

Eishan Ashwat (E)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh.

Danial Ahmad (D)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh.

Michel Pompeu Sá (MP)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh.

Derek-Serna Gallegos (DS)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Yisi Wang (Y)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Floyd Thoma (F)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

James A Brown (JA)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh.

Pyongsoo Yoon (P)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Johannes Bonatti (J)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

David Kaczorowski (D)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

David West (D)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Danny Chu (D)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Ibrahim Sultan (I)

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh; UPMC Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Electronic address: sultani@upmc.edu.

Classifications MeSH