Mechanical versus Tissue Aortic Prosthesis in Sexagenarians: Comparison of Hemodynamic and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND

The question of which type of prosthetic aortic valve leads to the best outcomes in patients in their 60s remains controversial. We examined the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes of aortic valve replacement in sexagenarians according to the type of prosthesis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 270 patients in their 60s who underwent first-time aortic valve replacement from 1995 to 2011. Early and late mortality, major adverse valve-related events, anticoagulation-related events, and hemodynamic outcomes were assessed. The mean follow-up duration was 58.7±44.0 months.

RESULTS

Of the 270 patients, 93 had a mechanical prosthesis (mechanical group), and 177 had a bioprosthesis (tissue group). The tissue group had a higher mean age and prevalence of preoperative stroke than the mechanical group. The groups had no differences in the aortic valve mean pressure gradient (AVMPG) or the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) at 5 years after surgery. In a sub-analysis limited to prostheses in the supra-annular position, the AVMPG was higher in the tissue group, but the LVMI was still not significantly different. There was no early mortality. The 10-year survival rate was 83% in the mechanical group and 90% in the tissue group. The type of aortic prosthesis did not influence overall mortality, cardiac mortality, or major adverse valve-related events. Anticoagulation-related events were more common in the mechanical group than in the tissue group (p=0.034; hazard ratio, 4.100; 95% confidence interval, 1.111-15.132).

CONCLUSION

The type of aortic prosthesis was not associated with hemodynamic or clinical outcomes, except for anticoagulation-related events.