Key result
Biological prostheses were associated with similar 15-year survival compared to mechanical prostheses in patients aged 50-65 years.
Why the study?
The choice between biological and mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement remains controversial in patients aged 50 to 65 years and had not been addressed in a Mediterranean population.
Does a biological prosthesis improve long-term survival or reduce morbidity compared to a mechanical prosthesis in patients aged 50-65 years undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Observational (n=1,443)
Yes
Does a biological prosthesis improve long-term survival or reduce morbidity compared to a mechanical prosthesis in patients aged 50-65 years undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In patients aged 50-65 undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement, biological and mechanical prostheses offer comparable long-term survival, though mechanical valves carry a higher bleeding risk and biological valves a higher reoperation risk.
OBJECTIVES: The decision about whether to use a biological or a mechanical prosthesis for aortic valve replacement remains controversial in patients between 50 and 65 years of age and has yet to be addressed in a Mediterranean population. This research aimed to analyse long-term survival and major morbidity rates (30-day mortality, stroke, any prosthetic reoperation and major bleeding) within this population. METHODS: Our multicentre observational retrospective study included all subjects aged 50-65 years who had a primary isolated aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis at 7 public hospitals from Andalusia (Spain) between 2000 and 2015. Concomitant surgery, reoperations and endocarditis were the exclusion criteria. A total of 1443 patients were enrolled in the study (272 with biological and 1171 with mechanical valves). Multivariate analyses including a 2:1 propensity score matching (506 mechanical and 257 biological prostheses) were conducted. RESULTS: Bioprostheses were implanted in 18.8% (n = 272): 35% were women; the mean EuroSCORE-I was 3%. The mean follow-up was 8.1 ± 4.9 years in a matched sample: 8.8 ± 4.9 years in those receiving a mechanical vs 7.1 ± 4.5 years in those receiving a biological prosthesis (P = 0.001). In the paired sample, the 15-year survival rate was 73% in those who had a biological vs 76% in those who had a mechanical valve [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.20; P = 0.159]. No significant differences were observed in patients ≥55 years old (74% of 15-year survival in both groups: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56-1.34; P = 0.527). A higher rate of major bleeding was found in patients with a mechanical prosthesis (P = 0.004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among those with a biological prosthesis (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival was comparable in patients above 55 years of age. Mechanical prostheses were associated with more major bleeding and bioprostheses, with more reoperations. A bioprosthesis in patients above 55 years old is a reasonable choice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03239509.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rodríguez-Caulo et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Severe aortic stenosis (n=1,443). Biological prosthesis vs. Mechanical prosthesis was evaluated on 15-year survival rate (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54-1.20, p=0.159). Biological prostheses were associated with similar 15-year survival compared to mechanical prostheses in patients aged 50-65 years.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: