Aortic valve replacement in young patients: should the biological prosthesis be recommended over the mechanical?

Affiliations

Editorial

Alberto Alperi et al. Ann Transl Med. 2018 May.

. 2018 May;6(10):183.

doi: 10.21037/atm.2018.02.21.

No abstract available

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: Revisiting prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years old.
Schnittman SR, Adams DH, Itagaki S, Toyoda N, Egorova NN, Chikwe J. Schnittman SR, et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Feb;155(2):539-547.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.08.121. Epub 2017 Sep 13. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018. PMID: 29110948

1. Schnittman SR, Adams DH, Itagaki S, et al. Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: Revisiting prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years old. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2018;155:539-47.e9. 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.08.121 - DOI - PubMed
1. Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, et al. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000;36:1152-8. 10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00834-2 - DOI - PubMed
1. Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M, et al. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009;54:1862-8. 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.032 - DOI - PubMed
1. Oxenham H, Bloomfield P, Wheatley DJ, et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 2003;89:715-21. 10.1136/heart.89.7.715 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
1. Tjang YS, van Hees Y, Körfer R, et al. Predictors of mortality after aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007;32:469-74. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.06.012 - DOI - PubMed