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

被引:6
作者
Vitanova, Keti [1 ,2 ]
Wirth, Felix [1 ,2 ]
Boehm, Johannes [1 ,2 ]
Burri, Melchior [1 ,2 ]
Lange, Ruediger [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Krane, Markus [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Tech Univ Munich, German Heart Ctr Munich, Dept Cardiovasc Surg, D-80636 Munich, Germany
[2] Tech Univ Munich, German Heart Ctr Munich, Dept Cardiovasc Surg, Insure Inst Translat Cardiac Surg, D-80636 Munich, Germany
[3] DZHK German Ctr Cardiovasc Res, Partner Site Munich Heart Alliance, D-80636 Munich, Germany
[4] Yale Univ, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Div Cardiac Surg, New Haven, CT 06511 USA
关键词
SAVR; bioprosthesis; mechanical prosthesis; aortic valve replacement; OUTCOMES; SURVIVAL; ADULTS;
D O I
10.3390/jcm10235554
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 24 条
  • [1] Baumgartner H, 2018, EUR HEART J, V39, P1980, DOI [10.1093/eurheartj/ehx636, 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391]
  • [2] Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: Improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses
    Brown, Morgan L.
    Schaff, Hartzell V.
    Lahr, Brian D.
    Mullany, Charles J.
    Sundt, Thoralf M.
    Dearani, Joseph A.
    McGregor, Christopher G.
    Orszulak, Thomas A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2008, 135 (04) : 878 - 884
  • [3] Survival and Long-term Outcomes Following Bioprosthetic vs Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 69 Years
    Chiang, Yuting P.
    Chikwe, Joanna
    Moskowitz, Alan J.
    Itagaki, Shinobu
    Adams, David H.
    Egorova, Natalia N.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 312 (13): : 1323 - 1329
  • [4] Chikwe J, 2015, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V313, P1435, DOI 10.1001/jama.2015.3164
  • [5] Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic valve prosthesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis
    Diaz, Rocio
    Hernandez-Vaquero, Daniel
    Alvarez-Cabo, Ruben
    Avanzas, Pablo
    Silva, Jacobo
    Moris, Cesar
    Pascual, Isaac
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2019, 158 (03) : 706 - +
  • [6] Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years
    Glaser, Natalie
    Jackson, Veronica
    Holzmann, Martin J.
    Franco-Cereceda, Anders
    Sartipy, Ulrik
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2016, 37 (34) : 2658 - 2667
  • [7] Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic-Valve and Mitral-Valve Replacement
    Goldstone, Andrew B.
    Chiu, Peter
    Baiocchi, Michael
    Lingala, Bharathi
    Patrick, William L.
    Fischbein, Michael P.
    Woo, Y. Joseph
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2017, 377 (19) : 1847 - 1857
  • [8] Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: Final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial
    Hammermeister, K
    Sethi, GK
    Henderson, WG
    Grover, FL
    Oprian, C
    Rahimtoola, SH
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2000, 36 (04) : 1152 - 1158
  • [9] Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement
    Head, Stuart J.
    Celik, Mevlut
    Kappetein, A. Pieter
    [J]. EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL, 2017, 38 (28) : 2183 - +
  • [10] National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements
    Isaacs, Abby J.
    Shuhaiber, Jeffrey
    Salemi, Arash
    Isom, O. Wayne
    Sedrakyan, Art
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2015, 149 (05) : 1262 - +