Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.

BACKGROUND

The choice of prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains challenging. The risk of anticoagulation complications vs. the risk of aortic valve reintervention should be weighed. This study compared the outcomes of bioprosthetic vs. mechanical AVR in patients older and younger than 50.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted from 2009 to 2019 and involved 292 adult patients who underwent isolated AVR. The patients were divided according to their age (above 50 years or 50 years and younger) and the type of valves used in each age group. The outcomes of bioprosthetic valves (Groups 1a (>50 years) and 1b (≤50 years)) were compared with those of mechanical valves (Groups 2a (>50 years) and 2b (≤50 years)) in each age group.

RESULTS

The groups had nearly equal rates of preexisting comorbidities except for Group 1b, in which the rate of hypertension was greater (32.6% vs. 14.7%; = 0.025). This group also had higher rates of old stroke (8.7% vs. 0%, = 0.011) and higher creatinine clearance (127.62 (108.82-150.23) vs. 110.02 (84.87-144.49) mL/min; = 0.026) than Group 1b. Patients in Group 1a were significantly older than Group 2a (64 (58-71) vs. 58 (54-67) years; = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the NYHA class between the groups. The preoperative ejection fraction and other echocardiographic parameters did not differ significantly between the groups. Re-exploration for bleeding was more common in patients older than 50 years who underwent mechanical valve replacement ( = 0.021). There was no difference in other postoperative complications between the groups. The groups had no differences in survival, stroke, or bleeding rates. Aortic valve reintervention was significantly greater in patients ≤ 50 years old with bioprosthetic valves. There were no differences between groups in the changes in left ventricular mass, ejection fraction, or peak aortic valve pressure during the 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic valve replacement were comparable in patients older than 50 years. Using bioprosthetic valves in patients younger than 50 years was associated with a greater rate of valve reintervention, with no beneficial effect on the risk of bleeding or stroke.