Long-term results after aortic valve replacement in patients with congestive heart failure. Homografts vs prosthetic valves

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the influence of valve substitute (homograft vs prosthetic valve) on the long-term survival and late valve-related complication rates following aortic valve replacement in patients with aortic valve disease and congestive heart failure. BACKGROUND: The effect of choice of valve substitute on outcome after aortic valve replacement in patients with pre-operative heart failure is unknown. The superior haemodynamic profile of homografts may be of particular benefit. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed pre-operative, operative and follow-up data on 518 adults in functional classes III and IV, who, over the 25 years 1969-1993, had their initial aortic valve replacement at Harefield hospital. Follow-up conducted during 1996 to April 1997 and totalling 4439 patient-years was 96.1% complete. Using multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for different complications and mortality were defined. RESULTS: Overall 5-, 10- and 20-year survival was 80+/-2%, 62+/-2% and 30+/-3%, respectively, with no significant difference between valve types. However, homografts (n=381) independently reduced the rate of serious complications and cardiac death, whereas mechanical valves were an independent adverse risk factor for late mortality. The rates of anticoagulant-related bleeding and thromboembolism were increased by mechanical valves, whereas primary tissue failure was the main complication of homografts. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcome of homograft aortic valve replacement in patients with congestive heart failure is acceptable, with a reduced rate of serious complications and cardiac death. Further improvements would be expected if the rate of primary tissue failure could be reduced.