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): Alexander Kulik Fraser D. Rubens Paul J. Hendry Roy G. Masters Thierry G. Mesana Marc Ruel Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kulik, A. Articles by Ruel, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kulik, A. Articles by Ruel, M. Related Collections Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;30:485-491
© 2006 Elsevier Science NL

Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients

^a Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Suite 3403, Ottawa, Ont. K1Y 4W7, Canada
^b Department of Epidemiology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Received 8 February 2006; received in revised form 29 May 2006; accepted 8 June 2006.

^_* Corresponding author. Address: Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Suite 3403, Ottawa, Ont. K1Y 4W7, Canada. Tel.: +1 613 761 4893; fax: +1 613 761 4713. (Email: mruel{at}ottawaheart.ca).

Objective: The current trend towards decreasing the age for selection of a tissue over a mechanical prosthesis has led to a dilemma for patients aged 50–65 years. This cohort study examines the long-term outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves in middle-aged patients. Methods: Patients (N = 659) aged between 50 and 65 years who had first-time aortic valve replacement (AVR) and/or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with contemporary prostheses were followed prospectively after surgery. The total follow-up was 3402 patient-years (mean 5.1 ± 4.1 years; maximum 18.3 years). Outcomes were examined with multivariate actuarial methods. A composite outcome of major adverse prosthesis-related events (MAPE) was defined as the occurrence of reoperation, endocarditis, major bleeding, or thromboembolism. Results: Ten-year survival was 73.2 ± 4.2% after mechanical AVR, 75.1 ± 12.6% after bioprosthetic AVR, 74.1 ± 4.6% after mechanical MVR, and 77.9 ± 7.4% after bioprosthetic MVR (P = NS). Ten-year reoperation rates were 35.4% and 21.3% with aortic and mitral bioprostheses, respectively. Major bleeding occurred more often following mechanical MVR (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2, 9.0; P = 0.022), and the incidence of any thromboembolic event was more common after mechanical MVR (HR: 4.7; CI 1.4, 13.3; P = 0.01). Overall freedom from MAPE at 10 years was 70.2 ± 4.1% for mechanical AVR patients, 41.0 ± 30.3% for bioprosthetic AVR patients, 53.3 ± 8.8% for mechanical MVR patients, and 61.2 ± 9.2% for bioprosthetic MVR patients. Although a trend existed towards more MAPE amongst middle-age patients with tissue valves, multivariate analysis did not identify the presence of a bioprosthesis as an independent risk factor for MAPE (HR: 1.3; CI 0.9, 2.0; P = 0.22). Conclusions: In middle-aged patients, MAPE may occur more often in patients with bioprosthetic valves, but definitive conclusions necessitate the accumulation of additional follow-up. At present, these data do not support lowering the usual cutoff for implantation of a tissue valve below the age of 65.

Key Words: Aortic valve replacement • Mitral valve replacement • Heart valve • Bioprosthesis • Heart valve • Mechanical • Outcomes (includes mortality • morbidity)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				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]

				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]

				T. Eitz, S. Schenk, D. Fritzsche, A. Bairaktaris, O. Wagner, H. Koertke, and R. Koerfer International Normalized Ratio Self-Management Lowers the Risk of Thromboembolic Events After Prosthetic Heart Valve Replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2008; 85(3): 949 - 955. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Ruel, V. Chan, P. Bedard, A. Kulik, L. Ressler, B. K. Lam, F. D. Rubens, W. Goldstein, P. J. Hendry, R. G. Masters, et al. Very Long-Term Survival Implications of Heart Valve Replacement With Tissue Versus Mechanical Prostheses in Adults <60 Years of Age Circulation, September 11, 2007; 116(11_suppl): I-294 - I-300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. D'Onofrio, S. Auriemma, P. Magagna, A. Favaro, A. Cannarella, C. Piccin, M. Bilotta, N. Abbiate, N. Lamascese, and A. Fabbri Aortic valve replacement with the Sorin Pericarbon Freedom stentless prosthesis: 7 years' experience in 130 patients J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2007; 134(2): 491 - 495. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kulik and M. Ruel Reply to Wu and Grunkemeier Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., December 1, 2006; 30(6): 954 - 954. [Full Text] [PDF]

				Y. Wu and G. L. Grunkemeier What is the risk that I will have a major complication after my valve operation? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., December 1, 2006; 30(6): 953 - 954. [Full Text] [PDF]