Matkovic Milos, Zivkovic Igor, Micovic Slobodan, Bilbija Ilija, Milacic Petar, Aleksic Nemanja, Milosevic Nemanja, Milojevic Milan, Putnik Svetozar
Department of Cardiac Surgery, University Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia.
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases Dedinje, Belgrade, Serbia.
Interdiscip Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2025 May 6;40(5). doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivaf110.
This study examines sex-based differences in baseline characteristics, practice patterns and mid-term survival following aortic valve replacement (AVR).
The study design included all consecutive patients from the AVR Registry with a 3-year follow-up. Patients were initially categorized by sex and prosthesis type. The primary end-point was 3-year all-cause mortality. Subgroup observations included the age-recommended threshold for mechanical prosthesis (<65 years) and the patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM).
The present study revealed that females (n = 517) compared to males (n = 732) were significantly older (67.2 ± 9.3 years vs 64.4 ± 12.2 years, P < 0.001), had higher body mass index (2.23 ± 7.2 cm2 vs 2.01 ± 0.2 cm2, P < 0.005) and lower left ventricular ejection fractions (51.8 ± 13.5% vs 57.7 ± 10.8%, P < 0.001) at the time of the index procedure. Additionally, females received significantly more bioprosthetic AVR than males (38.1% vs 32.6%, P = 0.040). There were no significant differences in 3-year mortality risk between males and females (14.6% vs 14.1%, P = 0.87). In subgroup analyses of patients with mechanical prostheses, females experienced a higher incidence of PPM than males (9.6% vs 2.2%, P < 0.001), whereas no significant difference was observed among those who received bioprosthetic valves. The male cohort observed reduced mortality associated with mechanical versus bioprostheses (hazard ratio [HR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.81, P = 0.003). This effect was particularly significant in males under 65 (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.68, P = 0.005). However, there was no difference in mortality related to prosthesis type in females, regardless of age group.
At the time of referral for AVR, female patients were significantly older and had worse clinical profiles than male patients. Despite the higher rates of bioprosthetic valve implantation and PPM in females, mid-term survival rates were not significantly different. In contrast, males, especially those under 65, showed higher mortality following bioprosthetic AVR. These findings underscore the need for further research focusing on the sex-based treatment determinates in AVR.
本研究探讨主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)后基线特征、治疗模式及中期生存率的性别差异。
研究设计纳入了AVR登记处所有连续的患者,并进行3年随访。患者最初按性别和假体类型分类。主要终点为3年全因死亡率。亚组观察包括机械假体的年龄推荐阈值(<65岁)和患者-假体不匹配(PPM)。
本研究显示,女性患者(n = 517)与男性患者(n = 732)相比,在首次手术时年龄显著更大(67.2±9.3岁 vs 64.4±12.2岁,P < 0.001),体重指数更高(2.23±7.2 cm² vs 2.01±0.2 cm²,P < 0.005),左心室射血分数更低(51.8±13.5% vs 57.7±10.8%,P < 0.001)。此外,女性接受生物瓣AVR的比例显著高于男性(38.1% vs 32.6%,P = 0.040)。男性和女性的3年死亡风险无显著差异(14.6% vs 14.1%,P = 0.87)。在机械假体患者的亚组分析中,女性PPM的发生率高于男性(9.6% vs 2.2%,P < 0.001),而接受生物瓣的患者中未观察到显著差异。男性队列中,与生物瓣相比,机械瓣与死亡率降低相关(风险比[HR] 0.54,95%置信区间[CI] 0.36 - 0.81,P = 0.003)。这种效应在65岁以下男性中尤为显著(HR 0.27,95% CI 0.11 - 0.68,P = 0.005)。然而,无论年龄组如何,女性中与假体类型相关的死亡率无差异。
在转诊进行AVR时,女性患者比男性患者年龄显著更大,临床情况更差。尽管女性生物瓣植入率和PPM更高,但中期生存率无显著差异。相比之下,男性,尤其是65岁以下男性,生物瓣AVR后的死亡率更高。这些发现强调了进一步研究AVR中基于性别的治疗决定因素的必要性。