Why the study?
The study investigated long-term mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic or mechanical aortic valve prostheses in a European social welfare state.
Does mechanical aortic valve prosthesis improve long-term mortality compared to bioprosthetic aortic valve prosthesis in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement?
Does mechanical aortic valve prosthesis improve long-term mortality compared to bioprosthetic aortic valve prosthesis in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement?
Mechanical aortic valve prostheses offer a significant survival benefit and lower risk of reoperation and myocardial infarction compared to bioprostheses in patients aged 50-65 years, challenging current guideline recommendations.
May favor mechanical AVR for survival in ages 50-65; leaves open guideline updates pending randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: The present population-based cohort study investigated long-term mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic (B) or mechanical aortic valve prostheses (M) in a European social welfare state. METHODS: We analysed patient data from health insurance records covering 98% of the Austrian population between 2010 and 2018. Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Further reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke were evaluated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 13,993 patients were analysed and the following age groups were examined separately: <50 years (727 patients: 57.77% M, 42.23% B), 50-65 years (2612 patients: 26.88% M, 73.12% B) and >65 years (10,654 patients: 1.26% M, 98.74% B). Multivariable Cox regression revealed that the use of B-AVR was significantly associated with higher mortality in patients aged 50-65 years compared to M-AVR (HR = 1.676 [1.289-2.181], p < 0.001). B-AVR also performed worse in a competing risk analysis regarding reoperation (HR = 3.483 [1.445-8.396], p = 0.005) and myocardial infarction (HR = 2.868 [1.255-6.555], p = 0.012). However, the risk of developing heart failure and stroke did not differ significantly after AVR in any age group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 50-65 years who underwent M-AVR had better long-term survival, and a lower risk of reoperation and myocardial infarction. Even though anticoagulation is crucial in patients with M-AVR, we did not observe significantly increased stroke rates in patients with M-AVR. This evident survival benefit in recipients of mechanical aortic valve prostheses aged <65 years critically questions current guideline recommendations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Traxler et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: