Davis E A, Greene P S, Cameron D E, Gott V I, Laschinger J C, Stuart R S, Sussman M S, Watkins L, Baumgartner W A
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md, USA.
Circulation. 1996 Nov 1;94(9 Suppl):II121-5.
Many centers advocate bioprosthetic valves in the elderly to avoid anticoagulation, in particular when patient survival is less than the expected valve durability. Because expected survival in the elderly is increasing and age-specific risk of anticoagulation in the elderly is not known, we examined valve- and anticoagulation-related morbidity in elderly patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprostheses or mechanical prostheses.
Between January 1980 and June 1994, 211 patients age > or = 70 years underwent isolated AVR; there were 109 men (52%) and 102 women (48%). Mean age was 75.9 +/- 4.8 years. Aortic stenosis was present in 194 (92%) patients. Bioprostheses were used in 145 (69%) and mechanical prostheses were used in 66 (31%). Chronic anticoagulation was maintained in all patients with a mechanical valve and in 18 patients (12%) with a bioprosthetic valve. Follow-up data were obtained for 98% (194 of 197) of hospital survivors at a mean follow-up of 3.8 years. Operative mortality was 6.6%; survival at 3 and 5 years was 75.3 +/- 3% and 64.6 +/- 4%, respectively. There was no significant difference in operative or late mortality between patient groups. Rates of freedom from thromboembolic events, endocarditis and anticoagulant-related hemorrhage for bioprosthetic and mechanical valve patients were similar. Prosthetic failure was identified in three bioprosthetic valves (2%); furthermore, the 4 patients in the series who required reoperation had received bioprostheses at the first operation.
In conclusion, (1) elderly patients undergoing isolated AVR can be managed with either mechanical or bioprosthetic valves with similar early and late risk, as long as there are no specific contraindications to anticoagulation; (2) anticoagulation-related risk of hemorrhage is low in this group of elderly patients; and (3) the low but significant risk of reoperation following the use of bioprostheses suggests that mechanical valves may be underused in the elderly.
许多中心提倡在老年患者中使用生物瓣膜以避免抗凝治疗,尤其是当患者生存期短于预期瓣膜耐久性时。由于老年人的预期生存期在增加,且老年人特定年龄的抗凝风险尚不清楚,我们研究了接受生物瓣膜或机械瓣膜主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)的老年患者中与瓣膜和抗凝相关的发病率。
1980年1月至1994年6月期间,211例年龄≥70岁的患者接受了单纯AVR;其中男性109例(52%),女性102例(48%)。平均年龄为75.9±4.8岁。194例(92%)患者存在主动脉瓣狭窄。145例(69%)使用生物瓣膜,66例(31%)使用机械瓣膜。所有机械瓣膜患者以及18例(12%)生物瓣膜患者维持长期抗凝治疗。对98%(197例中的194例)的医院幸存者进行了随访,平均随访时间为3.8年。手术死亡率为6.6%;3年和5年生存率分别为75.3±3%和64.6±4%。患者组之间的手术或晚期死亡率无显著差异。生物瓣膜和机械瓣膜患者的血栓栓塞事件、心内膜炎和抗凝相关出血的发生率相似。在三个生物瓣膜中发现了瓣膜功能障碍(2%);此外,该系列中4例需要再次手术的患者在首次手术时接受了生物瓣膜。
总之,(1)只要没有抗凝的特定禁忌证,接受单纯AVR的老年患者使用机械瓣膜或生物瓣膜均可,早期和晚期风险相似;(2)该组老年患者抗凝相关的出血风险较低;(3)使用生物瓣膜后再次手术的风险虽低但显著,这表明机械瓣膜在老年患者中可能未得到充分应用。