Biological or mechanical prostheses for isolated aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50-65 years: the ANDALVALVE study
- PMID: 30608571
- DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy459
Biological or mechanical prostheses for isolated aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50-65 years: the ANDALVALVE study
Abstract
Objectives: The decision about whether to use a biological or a mechanical prosthesis for aortic valve replacement remains controversial in patients between 50 and 65 years of age and has yet to be addressed in a Mediterranean population. This research aimed to analyse long-term survival and major morbidity rates (30-day mortality, stroke, any prosthetic reoperation and major bleeding) within this population.
Methods: Our multicentre observational retrospective study included all subjects aged 50-65 years who had a primary isolated aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis at 7 public hospitals from Andalusia (Spain) between 2000 and 2015. Concomitant surgery, reoperations and endocarditis were the exclusion criteria. A total of 1443 patients were enrolled in the study (272 with biological and 1171 with mechanical valves). Multivariate analyses including a 2:1 propensity score matching (506 mechanical and 257 biological prostheses) were conducted.
Results: Bioprostheses were implanted in 18.8% (n = 272): 35% were women; the mean EuroSCORE-I was 3%. The mean follow-up was 8.1 ± 4.9 years in a matched sample: 8.8 ± 4.9 years in those receiving a mechanical vs 7.1 ± 4.5 years in those receiving a biological prosthesis (P = 0.001). In the paired sample, the 15-year survival rate was 73% in those who had a biological vs 76% in those who had a mechanical valve [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.20; P = 0.159]. No significant differences were observed in patients ≥55 years old (74% of 15-year survival in both groups: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56-1.34; P = 0.527). A higher rate of major bleeding was found in patients with a mechanical prosthesis (P = 0.004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among those with a biological prosthesis (P = 0.01).
Conclusions: Long-term survival was comparable in patients above 55 years of age. Mechanical prostheses were associated with more major bleeding and bioprostheses, with more reoperations. A bioprosthesis in patients above 55 years old is a reasonable choice.
Clinical trial registration number: NCT03239509.
Keywords: Aortic valve replacement; Bioprostheses; Long-term survival; Mechanical prostheses; Propensity score.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
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
-
Mechanical versus biological valve prosthesis for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with infective endocarditis.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019 Sep 1;29(3):386-392. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivz122. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2019. PMID: 31121026
-
Long-term Outcomes of Mechanical Vs Biologic Aortic Valve Prosthesis in Patients Older Than 70 Years.Ann Thorac Surg. 2019 Nov;108(5):1354-1360. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.04.012. Epub 2019 May 10. Ann Thorac Surg. 2019. PMID: 31082357
-
Long-term outcomes of mechanical versus biological aortic valve prosthesis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Sep;158(3):706-714.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.10.146. Epub 2018 Nov 20. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019. PMID: 30579533
-
[Aortic valve replacement: technique and outcome with artificial heart valves and allografts].Ther Umsch. 1998 Dec;55(12):737-45. Ther Umsch. 1998. PMID: 10025187 Review. German.
Cited by
-
Bioprostheses and Mechanical Prostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 65 Years Offer Similar Long-Term Survival Rates.J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2025 Jan 26;12(2):44. doi: 10.3390/jcdd12020044. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2025. PMID: 39997478 Free PMC article.
-
Long-term clinical outcomes in patients between the age of 50-70 years receiving biological versus mechanical aortic valve prostheses.Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2025 Feb 4;67(2):ezaf033. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezaf033. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2025. PMID: 39891404 Free PMC article.
-
Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Middle-Aged Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023 Feb 20;10(2):90. doi: 10.3390/jcdd10020090. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2023. PMID: 36826586 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in non-elderly patients: a single-centre analysis of clinical outcomes and quality of life.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021 Apr 19;32(4):515-521. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivaa306. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2021. PMID: 33313767 Free PMC article.
-
Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2024 Jul 18;11(7):227. doi: 10.3390/jcdd11070227. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2024. PMID: 39057647 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical