Ten-Year Long-Term Analysis of Mechanical and Biological Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND

For patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR), structural valve deterioration (SVD) of a bioprosthesis (BP) is substantially accelerated in younger patients and valve-in-valve implantation is not always a considerable option. The risk-benefit assessment between SVD versus the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients with a mechanical prosthesis (MP) resulted in an age limit shift irrespective of inconsistent results reported in literature.

METHOD

This retrospective single-center study compared 10-year long-term outcomes in patients undergoing isolated AVR with MP or BP. The risk-adjusted comparison of patients undergoing isolated AVR ( = 121) was performed after 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) for age, sex, endocarditis, and chronic renal impairment (caliper of 0.2) leading to 29 pairs. Short- and long-term outcomes with respect to reoperation, major bleeding, stroke, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and overall survival at 10 years were analyzed.

RESULTS

After PSM, groups were comparable with respect to preoperative characteristics, including patients with a mean age of 65 ± 3 years (MP) and 66 ± 4 years (BP) and an incidence rate of 6.9% for infective endocarditis in both cohorts. Short-term outcomes (transient neurologic disorder = 0.0 vs. 6.9%; stroke = 0.0%; in-hospital mortality = 3.4%) and in-hospital stays were comparable between MP and BP.

CONCLUSION

After isolated AVR with MP and BP, 10-year long-term outcomes were comparable in the reported single-center cohort. MP can still be implanted safely without a disadvantage as regards long-term survival.