Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine II, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Laboratory for Cardiac and Thoracic Diagnosis, Regeneration and Applied Immunology, Vienna, Austria.
Eur J Clin Invest. 2022 May;52(5):e13736. doi: 10.1111/eci.13736. Epub 2021 Dec 30.
The present population-based cohort study investigated long-term mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic (B) or mechanical aortic valve prostheses (M) in a European social welfare state.
We analysed patient data from health insurance records covering 98% of the Austrian population between 2010 and 2018. Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Further reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke were evaluated as secondary outcomes.
A total of 13,993 patients were analysed and the following age groups were examined separately: <50 years (727 patients: 57.77% M, 42.23% B), 50-65 years (2612 patients: 26.88% M, 73.12% B) and >65 years (10,654 patients: 1.26% M, 98.74% B). Multivariable Cox regression revealed that the use of B-AVR was significantly associated with higher mortality in patients aged 50-65 years compared to M-AVR (HR = 1.676 [1.289-2.181], p < 0.001). B-AVR also performed worse in a competing risk analysis regarding reoperation (HR = 3.483 [1.445-8.396], p = 0.005) and myocardial infarction (HR = 2.868 [1.255-6.555], p = 0.012). However, the risk of developing heart failure and stroke did not differ significantly after AVR in any age group.
Patients aged 50-65 years who underwent M-AVR had better long-term survival, and a lower risk of reoperation and myocardial infarction. Even though anticoagulation is crucial in patients with M-AVR, we did not observe significantly increased stroke rates in patients with M-AVR. This evident survival benefit in recipients of mechanical aortic valve prostheses aged <65 years critically questions current guideline recommendations.
本基于人群的队列研究调查了在一个欧洲福利国家中,使用生物假体(B)或机械主动脉瓣假体(M)进行主动脉瓣置换(AVR)后的长期死亡率。
我们分析了 2010 年至 2018 年期间医疗保险记录涵盖的奥地利 98%人口的患者数据。随后,通过国家健康数据对患者水平记录进行链接,提供了患者特征和临床结局。进一步评估了再次手术、心肌梗死、心力衰竭和中风作为次要结局。
共分析了 13993 名患者,并分别检查了以下年龄组:<50 岁(727 例:57.77% M,42.23% B)、50-65 岁(2612 例:26.88% M,73.12% B)和>65 岁(10654 例:1.26% M,98.74% B)。多变量 Cox 回归显示,与 M-AVR 相比,50-65 岁患者使用 B-AVR 与死亡率显著升高相关(HR=1.676 [1.289-2.181],p<0.001)。在考虑到再次手术(HR=3.483 [1.445-8.396],p=0.005)和心肌梗死(HR=2.868 [1.255-6.555],p=0.012)的竞争风险分析中,B-AVR 的表现也较差。然而,在任何年龄组中,AVR 后发生心力衰竭和中风的风险没有显著差异。
接受 M-AVR 的 50-65 岁患者具有更好的长期生存率,再次手术和心肌梗死的风险较低。尽管机械主动脉瓣假体患者需要抗凝,但我们并未观察到机械主动脉瓣假体患者中风发生率显著增加。这种在接受机械主动脉瓣假体的<65 岁患者中明显的生存获益,对当前指南推荐提出了严峻挑战。