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 Author home page(s): Gary L. Grunkemeier Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Puvimanasinghe, J. P.A. Articles by Bogers, A. J.J.C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Puvimanasinghe, J. P.A. Articles by Bogers, A. J.J.C. Related Collections Cardiac - other Coronary disease Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003;23:688-695
© 2003 Elsevier Science NL

Choice of a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis for AVR: does CABG matter?

^a Department of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
^b Center for Clinical Decision Sciences, Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
^c Providence Health System, Portland, OR, USA

Received 2 October 2002; received in revised form 24 January 2003; accepted 27 January 2003.

^* Corresponding author. Department of Cardio-thoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Room Bd 162a, A.Z.R. Dijkzigt, Postbus 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31-10-463-5784; fax: +31-10-463-3993
e-mail: j.p.a.puvimanasinghe{at}erasmusmc.nl

Objective: Mechanical valves and bioprostheses are the commonly used devices in aortic valve replacement (AVR). Many patients with valvular disease also require concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We used a microsimulation model to provide insight into the outcomes of patients after AVR with mechanical valves and stented bioprostheses, with and without CABG, and to determine the age-thresholds or age crossover points in outcomes between the two valve types. Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of published results after primary AVR with mechanical prostheses (nine reports, 4274 patients, 25,726 patient-years) and stented porcine bioprostheses (13 reports, 9007 patients, 54,151 patient-years) to estimate risks of valve-related events. A hazard ratio of 1.3 was used to incorporate the effect of CABG on long-term survival. Estimates were entered into a microsimulation model, which was then used to predict the outcomes of patients after AVR, with and without CABG. The model calculations were validated using a large data set from Portland, USA. Results: For a 65-year-old male without CABG, the life expectancy (LE) was 11.2 and 11.6 years and the event-free life expectancy (EFLE) was 8.2 and 8.9 years, respectively, after implantation with mechanical valves and bioprostheses. The lifetime risk of at least one valve-related event was 51 and 47%, respectively. The age crossover point between the two valve types, considering the above outcome parameters, was 59, 60 and 63 years, respectively. CABG reduced LE and consequently EFLE and lifetime risk of an event, but only minimally influenced the patient age crossover points. The model calculations showed good agreement with the Portland data. Conclusions: The currently recommended patient age for using a bioprosthesis (65 years) could be lowered further, irrespective of concomitant CABG. The trade-off between the reduced risks of bioprosthetic failure and of hemorrhage in mechanical valves, resulting from a lower LE, minimized the effect of CABG on the age crossover points between the two valve types.

Key Words: Aortic valve replacement • Coronary artery bypass grafting • Prognostic modeling • Mechanical valves • Bioprostheses

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. L. Brown, H. V. Schaff, B. D. Lahr, C. J. Mullany, T. M. Sundt, J. A. Dearani, C. G. McGregor, and T. A. Orszulak Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: Improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., April 1, 2008; 135(4): 878 - 884. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Rao, R. D. L. Stanbridge, J. Chikwe, J. Pepper, P. Skapinakis, O. Aziz, A. Darzi, and T. Athanasiou Does Previous Percutaneous Coronary Stenting Compromise the Long-Term Efficacy of Subsequent Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery? A Microsimulation Study Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2008; 85(2): 501 - 507. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. D. Desai and G. T. Christakis Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Stented Pericardial and Porcine Valves Card. Surg. Adult, January 1, 2008; 3(2008): 857 - 894. [Full Text]

				A. P. Kappetein, J. J.M. Takkenberg, J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, W.R. E. Jamieson, M. Eijkemans, and Ad.J.J.C. Bogers Does the type of biological valve affect patient outcome? Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, August 1, 2006; 5(4): 398 - 402. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P.A. Puvimanasinghe, J. J.M. Takkenberg, M. J.C. Eijkemans, E. W. Steyerberg, L. A. van Herwerden, G. L. Grunkemeier, J. D. F. Habbema, and A. J.J.C. Bogers Prognosis After Aortic Valve Replacement With the Carpentier-Edwards Pericardial Valve: Use of Microsimulation Ann. Thorac. Surg., September 1, 2005; 80(3): 825 - 831. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]