Why the study?
It remained unclear whether systemic inflammatory responses differ by prosthesis type and influence clinical or functional outcomes after cardiac valve surgery.
Does mechanical valve replacement improve functional recovery or alter perioperative inflammation compared to bioprosthetic valve replacement in adults undergoing surgical aortic or mitral valve replacement?
Observational (n=100)
Does mechanical valve replacement improve functional recovery or alter perioperative inflammation compared to bioprosthetic valve replacement in adults undergoing surgical aortic or mitral valve replacement?
Absolute Event Rate: 5.68% vs 3.83%
p-value: p=0.003
Mechanical valve replacement confers superior mid-term ventricular improvement and lower transvalvular gradients compared to bioprosthetic valves, despite similar perioperative inflammatory responses.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac valve surgery induces systemic inflammation and variable ventricular recovery. Whether inflammatory responses differ by prosthesis type and influence clinical or functional outcomes remains unclear. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 100 adults undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) received either mechanical (n = 50) or bioprosthetic (n = 50) valves. Biochemical and inflammatory markers were measured preoperatively, on postoperative day (POD) 1, and on POD 6. Early clinical outcomes were recorded. Transthoracic echocardiography was performed at baseline and 6 months. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups (age: 49.96 ± 9.88 years; baseline left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]: 48.97 ± 9.00%; EuroSCORE II: 3.64 ± 1.74). All patients exhibited a marked inflammatory surge on POD 1, with C-reactive protein increasing from 4.04 (2.83-5.33) to 59.98 (45.50-74.05) mg/L and interleukin-6 from 7.08 (5.91-8.28) to 118.53 (95.25-141.06) pg/mL, followed by partial normalization by day 6 (all P < 0.001). Inflammatory trajectories did not differ by prosthesis type. Early outcomes included atrial fibrillation in 32%, acute kidney injury in 16.0%, and 30-day mortality in 6.0%, without significant valve-group differences. At 6 months, mechanical valves demonstrated lower mean transvalvular gradients (5.77 ± 4.69 vs. 10.20 ± 5.18 mmHg; P = 0.001) and greater improvement in LVEF (ΔLVEF: 5.68 ± 2.99 vs. 3.83 ± 3.08%; P = 0.003). AVR (β = 2.80; P < 0.001) and mechanical prostheses (β = 2.50; P < 0.001) independently predicted greater ΔLVEF. Serum lactate predicted 30-day mortality (area under the curve: 0.846). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative inflammation is substantial but transient and unrelated to prosthesis type. Functional recovery is driven by valve position and prosthesis hemodynamics, with mechanical AVR conferring superior mid-term ventricular improvement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Srivastva et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Aortic or mitral valve replacement (n=100). Mechanical valves vs. Bioprosthetic valves was evaluated on Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (ΔLVEF) at 6 months (p=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: