HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Morgan L. Brown Hartzell V. Schaff Charles J. Mullany Thoralf M. Sundt Joseph A. Dearani Christopher G. McGregor Thomas A. Orszulak Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Brown, M. L. Articles by Orszulak, T. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Brown, M. L. Articles by Orszulak, T. A. Related Collections Valve disease

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2008;135:878-884
© 2008 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery

Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: Improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses

^a Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn
^b Division of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn

Received for publication June 23, 2007; revisions received October 15, 2007; accepted for publication October 26, 2007.

^_* Address for reprints: Hartzell V. Schaff, MD, Mayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN 55905. (Email: schaff{at}mayo.edu).

Objective: Improved durability of bioprostheses has led some surgeons to recommend biologic rather than mechanical prostheses for patients younger than 65 years. We compared late results of contemporary bioprostheses and bileaflet mechanical prostheses in patients who underwent aortic valve replacement between 50 and 70 years old.

Methods: In this retrospective study, patients received either St Jude bileaflet valves or Carpentier–Edwards bioprostheses. Operations were performed between January 1991 and December 2000, and groups were matched one-to-one according to age, sex, need for coronary artery bypass grafting, and valve size.

Results: Four hundred forty patients were matched, and follow-up was 92% complete, with median durations of 9.1 years for patients who received mechanical valves and 6.2 years for patients who received bioprostheses. The 5- and 10-year unadjusted survivals were 87% and 68% for mechanical valves and 72% and 50% for bioprostheses, respectively (P < .01). Freedoms from reoperation at 10 years were 98% for mechanical valves and 91% for bioprostheses (P = .06). Rates of late stroke or other embolic events and of endocarditis were similar between groups. Hemorrhagic complications necessitating hospitalization occurred in 15% of patients with mechanical valves and 7% of patients with bioprostheses (P = .01). Notably, 19% of patients with bioprostheses were receiving warfarin sodium at last follow-up. After adjustment for unmatched variables, including diabetes, renal failure, lung disease, New York Heart Association functional class, ejection fraction, and stroke, the use of a mechanical valve was protective against late mortality (hazard ratio 0.46, P < .01).

Conclusion: In this study, patients aged 50 to 70 years who underwent aortic valve replacement with mechanical valves had a survival advantage relative to matched patients who received bioprostheses. These findings question recommendations of bioprostheses for younger patients and suggest that a randomized trial may be warranted.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. D. Desai, F. McCarthy, W. Moser, W. Y. Szeto, A. Zeeshan, D. Brown, Y. J. Woo, A. Pochettino, P. Moeller, and J. E. Bavaria Durability of Porcine Bioroots in Younger Patients With Aortic Root Pathology: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With Composite Mechanical Roots Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2011; 92(6): 2054 - 2061. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Dunning, H. Gao, J. Chambers, N. Moat, G. Murphy, D. Pagano, S. Ray, J. Roxburgh, and B. Bridgewater Aortic valve surgery: Marked increases in volume and significant decreases in mechanical valve use-an analysis of 41,227 patients over 5 years from the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2011; 142(4): 776 - 782.e3. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. A. Ashikhmina, H. V. Schaff, J. A. Dearani, T. M. Sundt III, R. M. Suri, S. J. Park, H. M. Burkhart, Z. Li, and R. C. Daly Aortic Valve Replacement in the Elderly: Determinants of Late Outcome Circulation, August 30, 2011; 124(9): 1070 - 1078. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Leontyev, M. A. Borger, P. Davierwala, T. Walther, S. Lehmann, J. Kempfert, and F. W. Mohr Redo Aortic Valve Surgery: Early and Late Outcomes Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2011; 91(4): 1120 - 1126. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. L. d'Arcy, B. D. Prendergast, J. B. Chambers, S. G. Ray, and B. Bridgewater Valvular heart disease: the next cardiac epidemic Heart, January 15, 2011; 97(2): 91 - 93. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. E. Halkos, P. Kilgo, O. M. Lattouf, J. D. Puskas, W. A. Cooper, R. A. Guyton, and V. H. Thourani The Effect of Diabetes Mellitus on In-Hospital and Long-Term Outcomes After Heart Valve Operations Ann. Thorac. Surg., July 1, 2010; 90(1): 124 - 130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. T. Nguyen, F. Delahaye, J.-F. Obadia, X. Duval, C. Selton-Suty, J.-P. Carteaux, B. Hoen, F. Alla, and for the AEPEI study group Aortic valve replacement for active infective endocarditis: 5-year survival comparison of bioprostheses, homografts and mechanical prostheses Eur J Cardiothorac Surg, May 1, 2010; 37(5): 1025 - 1032. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Stassano, L. Di Tommaso, M. Monaco, F. Iorio, P. Pepino, N. Spampinato, and C. Vosa Aortic Valve Replacement: A Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Versus Biological Valves in Patients Ages 55 to 70 Years J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 10, 2009; 54(20): 1862 - 1868. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. H. Stone Current Selection of Optimal Prosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Middle-Aged Patients: Still Dealer's Choice J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., November 10, 2009; 54(20): 1869 - 1871. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. H. Rahimtoola The Year in Valvular Heart Disease J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., May 19, 2009; 53(20): 1894 - 1908. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Vahanian, B. Iung, L. Pierard, R. Dion, and J. Pepper CHAPTER 21 Valvular Heart Disease ESC Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, January 1, 2009; 2(1): med-9780199566990-chapter - med-9780199566990-chapter. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Brown and H. Schaff Reply to the Editor: J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2008; 136(4): 1102 - 1102. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Cannata, C. F. Russo, and C. Taglieri Aortic valve replacement dilemma: mechanical or biological prosthesis? J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., October 1, 2008; 136(4): 1101 - 1102. [Full Text] [PDF]