Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients under 50 years old offers freedom from lifelong anticoagulation, but literature concerning long-term performance remains insufficient to be conclusive.
Does bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement improve outcomes compared to mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 50 years?
This review highlights emerging evidence that bioprosthetic aortic valves may be a safe and durable alternative to mechanical valves in patients under 50, potentially avoiding lifelong anticoagulation.
Aortic valve disease is one of the most common valvular heart diseases in the cardiovascular category. Surgical replacement of the diseased aortic valve remains the definitive intervention for most diseases. There is a clear consensus that in young patients who require aortic valve replacement, a mechanical prosthesis is the preferred choice due to its durable prosthesis without fear of wear and tear over time. However, this comes at the expense of increased risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events; in addition, there is a lack of strict evidence in using bioprosthesis in patients younger than 50 years. The objective of this review article is to assess the current evidence behind using bioprosthetic aortic valve in this young cohort.
Harky et al. (Tue,) conducted a review in Aortic Valve Disease. Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement vs. Mechanical aortic valve replacement was evaluated. Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients under 50 years old offers freedom from lifelong anticoagulation, but literature concerning long-term performance remains insufficient to be conclusive.