Aortic biological valve prosthesis in patients younger than 65 years of age: transition to a flexible age limit?
- PMID: 23287588
- PMCID: PMC3598028
- DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivs514
Aortic biological valve prosthesis in patients younger than 65 years of age: transition to a flexible age limit?
Abstract
Objectives: Guidelines proposed bioprosthesis implantation for aortic valve disease if the patients were at least 65 years old at the time of surgery, with a trend towards even younger patients in recent years. Considering the adverse effects of lifetime anticoagulation, new biological valves (less prone to degeneration) and new technologies may lead patients and surgeons to different choices. Therefore, it is interesting to analyse the results of aortic bioprosthetic valve replacement in patients aged <65 years at the time of surgery.
Methods: From January 2000 to December 2010, 84 patients aged <65 years at the time of surgery had undergone an aortic bio-prosthetic valve replacement. A mid-term follow-up [(FU) mean FU time: 54.4 ± 39.2 months] was done in August 2011 in all patients (FU completeness: 100%). Results were compared with patients who had a mechanical prosthetic aortic valve replacement during the same period.
Results: The reoperation rate for structural valve degeneration (SVD) of bioprostheses was 6% and occurred exclusively among patients <56 years. Contraindications for anticoagulation determined the choice of a bioprosthesis among 83% of these patients. The personal preference to avoid anticoagulation was the leading cause in 68% of the older patients (56-65 years). Neurological complications occurred more frequently in the mechanical control group.
Conclusions: Reoperations for SVD after bioprosthesis implantation occurred exclusively among younger patients (<56 years), not suitable for systemic anticoagulation. Previous studies, together with our experience, are in favour of an age limit between 56 and 60 years, taking into consideration alternative transcatheter approaches to SVD treatment.
Figures
Comment in
-
eComment. The majority of younger patients in the USA chose biological aortic valves.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Apr;16(4):507. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt040. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013. PMID: 23504754 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
eComment. Flexible age limits for biological aortic prosthesis implantation.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Apr;16(4):507. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt043. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013. PMID: 23504755 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
eComment. A novel lower age threshold for use of biological valves.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Apr;16(4):507-8. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt054. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013. PMID: 23504756 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
eComment. Cardiac bioprostheses: new focuses for new times.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Apr;16(4):508. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt103. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013. PMID: 23504757 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Mid- to long-term outcome comparison of the Medtronic Hancock II and bi-leaflet mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age: a propensity-matched analysis.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016 Mar;22(3):280-6. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv347. Epub 2015 Dec 15. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016. PMID: 26675564 Free PMC article.
-
Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012 Nov;144(5):1075-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.01.024. Epub 2012 Feb 17. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012. PMID: 22341653
-
Fate of aortic bioprostheses: An 18-year experience.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Mar;151(3):754-761.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.10.020. Epub 2015 Oct 23. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016. PMID: 26651959
-
Selection of Valve Prostheses.Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 Summer;27(2):152-8. doi: 10.1053/j.semtcvs.2015.06.007. Epub 2015 Jun 30. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015. PMID: 26686441 Review.
-
What is the best approach in a patient with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve: transcatheter aortic valve replacement or redo aortic valve replacement?Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015 Jun;20(6):837-43. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv037. Epub 2015 Mar 8. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015. PMID: 25754372 Review.
Cited by
-
eComment. The majority of younger patients in the USA chose biological aortic valves.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Apr;16(4):507. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt040. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013. PMID: 23504754 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
eComment. A novel lower age threshold for use of biological valves.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013 Apr;16(4):507-8. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivt054. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013. PMID: 23504756 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Age-stratified outcomes of bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacements in an Australian cohort of 13 377 patients.BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2020 Oct 27;2(1):e000036. doi: 10.1136/bmjsit-2020-000036. eCollection 2020. BMJ Surg Interv Health Technol. 2020. PMID: 35047791 Free PMC article.
-
Biological Aortic Heart Valve Prosthesis in Patients Under 65 Years Old: Are the Paradigms Changing?Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Sep-Oct;33(5):I. doi: 10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0606. Braz J Cardiovasc Surg. 2018. PMID: 30517248 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Technical pitfalls and tips for the valve-in-valve procedure.Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Sep;6(5):541-552. doi: 10.21037/acs.2017.09.13. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017. PMID: 29062752 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Vahanian A, Baumgartner H, Bax J, Butchart E, Dion R, Filippatos G, et al. Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines: Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease: The Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:230–68. - PubMed
-
- Bonow RO, Carabello BA, Kanu C, de Leon AC, Jr, Faxon DP, Freed MD, et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2006;114:84–231. - PubMed
-
- Vahanian A, Alfieri O, Andreotti F, Antunes MJ, Barón-Esquivias G, Baumgartner H, et al. Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease (version 2012): The Joint Task Force on the Management of Valvular Heart Disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;42:S1–S44. - PubMed
-
- Chikwe J, Filsoufi F, Carpentier AF. Prosthetic valve selection for middle-aged patients with aortic stenosis. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2010;7:711–9. - PubMed
-
- Stoica S, Goldsmith K, Demiris N, Punjabi P, Berg G, Sharples L, et al. Microsimulation and clinical outcomes analysis support a lower age threshold for use of biological valves. Heart. 2010;96:1730–6. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources