Tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in younger patients: A multicenter analysis

Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to examine the long-term survival of patients between the ages of 50 and 65 years who underwent tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in a multicenter cohort.

Methods: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of all AVR patients (n = 9388) from 1991 to 2015 among 7 medical centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged 50 to 65 years who underwent isolated AVR. Baseline comorbidities were balanced using inverse probability weighting for a study cohort of 1449 AVRs: 840 tissue and 609 mechanical. The primary end point of the analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation.

Results: During the study period, there was a significant shift from mechanical to tissue valves (P < .001). There was no significant difference in major in-hospital morbidity, mortality, or length of hospitalization. Also, there was no significant difference in adjusted 15-year survival between mechanical versus tissue valves (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.13; P = .29), although tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation with a cumulative incidence of 19.1% (95% CI, 14.4%-24.3%) versus 3.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-4.9%) for mechanical valves. The reoperative 30-day mortality rate was 2.4% (n = 2) for the series.

Conclusions: Among patients 50 to 65 years old who underwent AVR, there was no difference in adjusted long-term survival according to prosthesis type, but tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation.

Keywords: bioprosthesis adverse effects; heart valve diseases; heart valve prosthesis adverse effects; mortality; survival analysis.