Why the study?
Surgically implanted aortic bioprostheses have recently been favoured in younger patients, prompting analysis of long-term survival and postoperative MACCE rates following isolated aortic valve replacement.
Does a biological prosthesis improve long-term survival and reduce MACCE compared to a mechanical prosthesis in patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement?
Does a biological prosthesis improve long-term survival and reduce MACCE compared to a mechanical prosthesis in patients undergoing isolated surgical aortic valve replacement?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthesis offers similar long-term survival to a mechanical prosthesis across all ages, with a potential survival benefit observed in patients under 60 years old.
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: = 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vitanova et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: