Use of Mechanical Versus Biological Aortic Valve in Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery for Patients Aged 60–70 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

One of the cardiac surgical procedures that is performed in a steady number over time in the United Kingdom (UK) is aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery, especially in those aged 60-70 years old. There has been various debates regarding which valve has better outcome in this group, and no guidelines have fixed recommendation for it. This research aims to examine the effects of AVR surgeries involving mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in individuals between the ages of 60 and 70. This metanalysis study was conducted by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, using secondary data from previous published studies. Outcomes include mortality, re-operation, thromboembolic event, and bleeding event. Inclusion criteria include direct comparison of using mechanical and biological valves, involve patients aged 60-70 years, and provide sufficient details of hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR), and Kaplan-Meier curves. Collected data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 29.0. We found that there Is a significant protective effect of mechanical valve on mortality compared to bioprosthetic valve (p = 0.00) and reoperation (p = 0.00). We conclude that mechanical valve emerges as a favorable option for SAVR in patients aged 60-70 years.