Key result
Mechanical aortic valve replacement (n=83) and biological aortic valve replacement (n=53) resulted in similar overall quality of life at 2 years postoperatively.
Why the study?
Does mechanical aortic valve replacement improve quality of life compared to biological aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Population
136 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (47 women, 89 men)
Comparison
Mechanical aortic valve replacement vs Biological aortic valve replacement
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
2 years
Authors
Loading...
Similar QoL should not change valve selection; leaves open need for age-adjusted RCTs.
Cohort (n=136)
Does mechanical aortic valve replacement improve quality of life compared to biological aortic valve replacement in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement?
Quality of life at 2 years post-aortic valve replacement is similar between mechanical and biological valves, though physical function scores may be better with mechanical valves, likely reflecting the younger age of that cohort.
Aboud et al. (2009) conducted a cohort in Aortic valve replacement (n=136). Mechanical aortic valve replacement vs. Biological aortic valve replacement was evaluated on Quality of life (Short Form 36-Item Health Survey). Mechanical aortic valve replacement (n=83) and biological aortic valve replacement (n=53) resulted in similar overall quality of life at 2 years postoperatively.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: