In a microsimulation model for a 65-year-old male without CABG, mechanical valves compared to bioprostheses yielded a lifetime risk of valve-related events of 51% vs 47%.
Meta-Analysis (n=13,281)
Yes
Does the choice of mechanical valve versus bioprosthesis affect life expectancy and event-free life expectancy in patients undergoing AVR with or without CABG?
The recommended age threshold for using a bioprosthesis instead of a mechanical valve for AVR could be lowered to around 60 years, irrespective of whether the patient requires concomitant CABG.
Absolute Event Rate: 51% vs 47%
OBJECTIVE: Mechanical valves and bioprostheses are the commonly used devices in aortic valve replacement (AVR). Many patients with valvular disease also require concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We used a microsimulation model to provide insight into the outcomes of patients after AVR with mechanical valves and stented bioprostheses, with and without CABG, and to determine the age-thresholds or age crossover points in outcomes between the two valve types. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of published results after primary AVR with mechanical prostheses (nine reports, 4274 patients, 25,726 patient-years) and stented porcine bioprostheses (13 reports, 9007 patients, 54,151 patient-years) to estimate risks of valve-related events. A hazard ratio of 1.3 was used to incorporate the effect of CABG on long-term survival. Estimates were entered into a microsimulation model, which was then used to predict the outcomes of patients after AVR, with and without CABG. The model calculations were validated using a large data set from Portland, USA. RESULTS: For a 65-year-old male without CABG, the life expectancy (LE) was 11.2 and 11.6 years and the event-free life expectancy (EFLE) was 8.2 and 8.9 years, respectively, after implantation with mechanical valves and bioprostheses. The lifetime risk of at least one valve-related event was 51 and 47%, respectively. The age crossover point between the two valve types, considering the above outcome parameters, was 59, 60 and 63 years, respectively. CABG reduced LE and consequently EFLE and lifetime risk of an event, but only minimally influenced the patient age crossover points. The model calculations showed good agreement with the Portland data. CONCLUSIONS: The currently recommended patient age for using a bioprosthesis (65 years) could be lowered further, irrespective of concomitant CABG. The trade-off between the reduced risks of bioprosthetic failure and of hemorrhage in mechanical valves, resulting from a lower LE, minimized the effect of CABG on the age crossover points between the two valve types.
Puvimanasinghe et al. (Thu,) conducted a meta-analysis in Aortic valve replacement (AVR) with or without CABG (n=13,281). Mechanical valves vs. Stented porcine bioprostheses was evaluated on Lifetime risk of at least one valve-related event (for a 65-year-old male without CABG). In a microsimulation model for a 65-year-old male without CABG, mechanical valves compared to bioprostheses yielded a lifetime risk of valve-related events of 51% vs 47%.