TY - JOUR
T1 - Similar long-term survival after isolated bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement
T2 - A propensity-matched analysis
AU - Members of the Cleveland Clinic Aortic Valve Center
AU - Attia, Tamer
AU - Yang, Yanzhi
AU - Svensson, Lars G.
AU - Toth, Andrew J.
AU - Rajeswaran, Jeevanantham
AU - Blackstone, Eugene H.
AU - Johnston, Douglas R.
AU - Mahboubi, Rashed
AU - Kakavand, Mona
AU - Soltesz, Edward G.
AU - Roselli, Eric E.
AU - Kapadia, Samir
AU - Desai, Milind Y.
AU - Bakaeen, Faisal G.
AU - Karamlou, Tara
AU - Najm, Hani
AU - Pettersson, Gosta B.
AU - Smedira, Nicholas G.
AU - Gillinov, A. Marc
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded in part by the Gus P. Karos Registry Fund, the Delos M. Cosgrove , MD, Chair for Heart Disease Research, the David Whitmire Hearst Jr, Foundation , the Sheikh Hamdan bin Rashid Al Maktoum Distinguished Chair in Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, the Drs Sidney and Becca Fleischer Heart and Vascular Education Chair, and the Judith Dion Pyle Endowed Chair in Heart Valve Research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery
PY - 2022/11
Y1 - 2022/11
N2 - Objectives: Improved durability and preference to avoid anticoagulation have led to increasing use of bioprostheses in younger patients despite the need for eventual reoperation. Therefore, we compared in-hospital complications, reoperation, and survival after bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement. Methods: From January 1990 to January 2020, 6143 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at Cleveland Clinic; 637 patients received a mechanical prosthesis and 5506 a bioprosthesis. Propensity matching identified 527 well-matched pairs (83% of possible matches) for comparison of perioperative outcomes. The average age of patients was 54 years in the bioprosthesis group and 55 years in the mechanical prosthesis group. Random Forest machine-learning analysis was performed to compare survival using the entire cohort of 6143 patients. Results: Among matched patients, major in-hospital complications, including stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and reoperation for bleeding, were similar, as was in-hospital mortality (2 in the bioprosthesis group [0.38%] vs 3 in the mechanical prosthesis group [0.57%]; P > .9). Patients receiving a bioprosthesis had shorter hospital stays (median 6 vs 7 days, P < .0001). Fifty-one patients (32% at 14 years) in the bioprosthesis group and 17 patients in the mechanical prosthesis group (8% at 14 years) underwent reoperation (P [log-rank] < .0001); 5-year survival after reoperation was 85% versus 82% (P = .6). Risk-adjusted Random Forest prediction of 18-year survival was 60% in the bioprosthetic group and 58% in the mechanical prosthesis group. Conclusions: Aortic valve bioprostheses are associated with excellent short-term outcomes and 18-year survival similar to that of patients receiving mechanical valves. Reoperation does not adversely affect survival. These results suggest that risk for reoperation alone should not deter the use of bioprostheses in younger patients.
AB - Objectives: Improved durability and preference to avoid anticoagulation have led to increasing use of bioprostheses in younger patients despite the need for eventual reoperation. Therefore, we compared in-hospital complications, reoperation, and survival after bioprosthetic and mechanical aortic valve replacement. Methods: From January 1990 to January 2020, 6143 patients underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at Cleveland Clinic; 637 patients received a mechanical prosthesis and 5506 a bioprosthesis. Propensity matching identified 527 well-matched pairs (83% of possible matches) for comparison of perioperative outcomes. The average age of patients was 54 years in the bioprosthesis group and 55 years in the mechanical prosthesis group. Random Forest machine-learning analysis was performed to compare survival using the entire cohort of 6143 patients. Results: Among matched patients, major in-hospital complications, including stroke, deep sternal wound infection, and reoperation for bleeding, were similar, as was in-hospital mortality (2 in the bioprosthesis group [0.38%] vs 3 in the mechanical prosthesis group [0.57%]; P > .9). Patients receiving a bioprosthesis had shorter hospital stays (median 6 vs 7 days, P < .0001). Fifty-one patients (32% at 14 years) in the bioprosthesis group and 17 patients in the mechanical prosthesis group (8% at 14 years) underwent reoperation (P [log-rank] < .0001); 5-year survival after reoperation was 85% versus 82% (P = .6). Risk-adjusted Random Forest prediction of 18-year survival was 60% in the bioprosthetic group and 58% in the mechanical prosthesis group. Conclusions: Aortic valve bioprostheses are associated with excellent short-term outcomes and 18-year survival similar to that of patients receiving mechanical valves. Reoperation does not adversely affect survival. These results suggest that risk for reoperation alone should not deter the use of bioprostheses in younger patients.
KW - aortic valve replacement
KW - bioprosthetic
KW - long-term survival
KW - mechanical prosthetic
KW - propensity matching
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104684326&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85104684326&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.11.181
DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.11.181
M3 - Article
C2 - 33892946
AN - SCOPUS:85104684326
SN - 0022-5223
VL - 164
SP - 1444-1455.e4
JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
IS - 5
ER -