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 Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ninet, J. Articles by Champsaur, G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ninet, J. Articles by Champsaur, G.

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1998;13:84-89
© 1998 Elsevier Science NL

Mechanical versus biological isolated aortic valvular replacement after the age of 70: equivalent long-term results¹

Service de Chirurgie thoracique et cardiovasculaire C, Hôpital Cardiovasculaire Louis Pradel, 28 Avenue du Doyen Lepine, BP Lyon-Monchat, 69394 Lyon, France

Received 29 September 1997; accepted 24 November 1997.

Corresponding author. Tel: +33 472 357479; fax: +33 472 341853.

Objective: In order to evaluate the long-term outcome of valvular substitutes in the elderly, we retrospectively analyzed two comparative groups of patients consecutively operated on by the same team for an isolated valvular aortic replacement using either a mechanical or a pericardial prosthesis. Methods: From 1982 to 1996, 206 patients over 70 years (mean 76.5±4.4) underwent an isolated aortic valvular replacement using either a St. Jude Medical (Group I, n=93) or a Mitroflow (Group II, n=113) prosthesis depending on the surgeon’s preference at the time of surgery. Both groups matched for the following pre-operative variables: sex ratio, type of aortic valve disease, NYHA status, cardiac rhythm, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, left ventricular end-diastolic pressure, LV-AO gradient, cardiac index and ejection fraction. Results: Given an early mortality rate of 6.4% in Group I and 4.4% in Group II (NS), follow-up (mean 4.4±3.7 years in Group I and 5.3±3.1 years in Group II) was 100% complete. Actuarial survival was 69.9±6 and 70.2±4.6% at 5 years for Group I and Group II, respectively, and 49.6±7.7 vs. 51.4±6.3% at 10 years (NS). Freedom from valve-related death was 86.5±4.8% in Group I vs. 82.7±4% in Group II at 5 years (NS) and 66.7±8.7 vs. 66.3±7% at 10 years (NS). There were no anticoagulant-related deaths or severe accidents in Group I. A secondary valvular replacement was necessary in 4 patients in Group II vs. none in Group I. Conclusion: The study shows a similar late survival in both groups, with a strikingly low incidence of anticoagulant-related deaths in this population. Given a higher rate of reoperation after biological valve replacement, the use of mechanical valve in this aging population seems to be a valid option.

Key Words: Aortic valve • Elderly • Long term results

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Takaseya, T. Kawara, S. Tokunaga, M. Kohno, Y. Oishi, and S. Morita Aortic Valve Replacement With 17-mm St. Jude Medical Prostheses for a Small Aortic Root in Elderly Patients Ann. Thorac. Surg., June 1, 2007; 83(6): 2050 - 2053. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Lund and M. Bland Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., July 1, 2006; 132(1): 20 - 26. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]