Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age

Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Volumn 144, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1075-1083

  Weber, Alberto ^a   Noureddine, Hassan ^a   Englberger, Lars ^a   Dick, Florian ^a   Gahl, Brigitta ^a   Aymard, Thierry ^a   Czerny, Martin ^a   Tevaearai, Hendrik ^a   Stalder, Mario ^a   Carrel, Thierry Pierre ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; CLOPIDOGREL; WARFARIN; ANTICOAGULANT AGENT;

ADULT; ANTICOAGULANT THERAPY; AORTIC REGURGITATION; AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT; AORTIC VALVE STENOSIS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL OUTCOME; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; ECHOCARDIOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE MASS; HUMAN; LONG TERM SURVIVAL; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; MIDDLE AGED; OVERALL SURVIVAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHETIC VALVE ENDOCARDITIS; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; AGE; AORTA VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; ECHOGRAPHY; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE REPLACEMENT; HEMODYNAMICS; KAPLAN MEIER METHOD; METHODOLOGY; MORTALITY; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; ORAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT SELECTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; PROSTHESIS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; SWITZERLAND; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALVULAR HEART DISEASE;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; ANTICOAGULANTS; AORTIC VALVE; BIOPROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE DISEASES; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS; HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; HEMODYNAMICS; HUMANS; KAPLAN-MEIER ESTIMATE; LOGISTIC MODELS; MATCHED-PAIR ANALYSIS; MIDDLE AGED; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATIENT SELECTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROPENSITY SCORE; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; REOPERATION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SWITZERLAND; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84856813868     PISSN: 00225223     EISSN: 1097685X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2012.01.024     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bonow, R.O., Carabello, B.A., Chatterjee, K., et al. ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 48 (2006), e1–e148 erratum in J Am Coll Cardiol.2007;49:1014.
2. Brown, J.M., O'Brien, S.M., Wu, Ch, Sikora, J.A., Griffith, B.P., Gammie, J.S., Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137 (2009), 82–90.
3. McClure, R.S., Narayanasamy, N., Wiegerinck, E., Lipsitz, S., Maloney, A., Byrne, J.G., et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg 89 (2010), 1410–1416.
4. Olsen, L.K., Engstrom, T., Sndergaard, L., Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation due to severe aortic regurgitation in a degenerated aortic homograft. J Invasive Cardiol 21 (2009), E197–E200.
5. Ruel, M., Chan, V., Bedard, P., et al. Very long-term survival implications of heart valve replacement with tissue versus mechanical prostheses in adults <60 years of age. Circulation 116 (2007), I295–I300.
6. Carpentier, A., The surprising rise of nonthrombogenic valvular surgery. Nat Med 13:10 (2007), 1165–1168.
7. Seiffert, M., Franzen, O., Conradi, L., et al. Series of transcatheter valve-in-valve implantations in high-risk patients with degenerated bioprostheses in aortic and mitral position. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 76 (2010), 608–615.
8. Bergstralh, E.J., Konsanke, J.L., Computerized matching of cases to controls. Technical Report 56. Department of Health Science Research. 1995, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
9. Heinze, G., Juni, P., An overview of the objectives of and the approaches to propensity score analyses. Eur Heart J 32 (2011), 1704–1708.
10. Rubin, D.B., The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 26 (2007), 20–36.
11. Rosenbaum, P.R., Rubin, D.B., The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70 (1983), 41–55.
12. Akins, C.W., Miller, D.C., Turina, M.I., et al. Guidelines for reporting mortality and morbidity after cardiac valve interventions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 135 (2008), 732–738.
13. Christiansen, S., Schmid, M., Autschbach, R., Perioperative risk of redo aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 15 (2009), 105–110.
14. Brown, M.L., Schaff, H.V., Lahr, B.D., Mullany, C.J., Sundt, T.M., Dearani, J.A., et al. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 135 (2008), 878–884.
15. Aymard, T., Eckstein, F., Englberger, L., Stalder, M., Kadner, A., Carrel, T., The Sorin Freedom SOLO stentless aortic valve: technique of implantation and operative results in 109 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139 (2010), 775–777.
16. Eggebrecht, H, Schäfer, U, Treede, H, Boekstegers, P, Babin-Ebell, J, Ferrari, M., et al. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation for degenerated bioprosthetic heart valves. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4 (2011), 1218–1227.
17. Hammermeister, K.E., Sethi, G.K., Henderson, W.C., et al. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 36 (2000), 1152–1158.
18. Oxenham, H., Bloomfield, P., Wheatly, D.J., et al. Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses. Heart 89 (2003), 715–721.
19. Dunning, J, Gao, H, Chambers, J, Moat, N, Murphy, G, Pagano, D., et al. 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 Surgey in Great Britain and Ireland National database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 142 (2011), 776–782 e3.
20. Stassano, P., Di Tommaso, L., Monaco, M., et al. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 54:20 (2009), 1862–1868.
21. van Geldorp, M.W.A., Jamieson, R.E., Kappetein, A.P., Ye, J., Fradet, G.J., Eijkemenas, M.J.C., et al. Patient outcome after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis: weighing lifetime anticoagulant-related event risk against reoperation risk. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137 (2009), 881–886.
22. Ruel, M., Kulik, A., Lam, B., et al. Long-term outcomes of valve replacement with modern prostheses in young adults. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27 (2005), 425–433.
23. Kahn, S.S., Trento, A., DeRobertis, M., et al. Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 122 (2001), 257–269.
24. Chan, V., Jamieson, W.R., Germann, E., et al. Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131 (2006), 1267–1273.
25. Kulik, A., Bedard, P., Lam, B.K., et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacements in middle-aged patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 30 (2006), 485–491.
26. Prasongsukarn, K., Jamieson, W.R., Lichtenstein, S.V., Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses in age group 61–70 years. J Heart Valve Dis, 14, 2005 501-501.
27. Rahimtoola, A.H., Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults: an update. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:22 (2010), 2413–2426.
28. Marquez, S., Hon, R.T., Yoganathan, A.P., et al. Comparative hydrodynamic evaluation of bioprosthetic heart valves. J Heart Valv Dis 10 (2001), 802–811.
29. Bottio, T., Caprilio, L., Casarotto, D., et al. Small aortic annulus: the hemodynamic performances of 5 commercially available bileaflet valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 128 (2004), 457–462.
30. Kuehnel, R.-U., Puchner, R., Pohl, A., et al. Characteristics resistance curves of aortic valve substitutes facilitate individualized decision for a particular patient. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27 (2005), 450–455.
31. Rahimtoola, S.H., The year in valvular heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 47 (2006), 427–439.
32. Zoghbi, W.A., Chambers, J.B., Dumesnil, J.G., et al. Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and Doppler ultrasound. J Am Soc Endocardiogr 22 (2009), 975–1014.
33. Cohen, G., Christakis, G.T., Joyner, C.D., et al. Are stentless valves hemodynamically superior to stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg 73 (2002), 767–778.
34. Chambers, J.B., Rimington, H.M., Hodson, F., et al. The subcoronary Toronto stentless versus supra-annular Perimount stented replacement aortic valves: early clinical and hemodynamic results of a randomized comparison in 160 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131 (2006), 878–882.
35. Biglioli, P., Spampinato, N., Cannata, A., et al. Long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve prosthesis in the aortic position: effect of patient age. J Heart Valve Dis 13:Suppl (2004), 49–51.
36. Banbury, M.K., Cosgrove, D.M., White, J.A., Blackstone, E.H., Frater, R.W.M., Okies, J.E., Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 72 (2001), 753–757.
37. Benjamin, E.J., Wolf, P.A., D'Agostino, R.B., Silbershatz, H., Kannel, W.B., Levy, D., Impact of atrial fibrillation on the risk of death: the Framingham heart study. Circulation 98 (1998), 946–952.
38. Colli, A., Verhoye, J.P., Leguerrier, A., Gherli, T., Anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy of bioprosthetic heart valves recipients: an unresolved issue. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 31 (2007), 573–577.
39. ElBardissi, A.W., DiBardino, D.J., Chen, F.Y., Yamashita, M.H., Cohn, L.H., Is early antithrombotic therapy necessary in patients with bioprosthetic aortic valves in normal sinus rhythm?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139 (2010), 1137–1145.
40. Aramendi, J.I., Mestres, C.A., Antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 33 (2008), 529–530.
41. Aupart, M.R., Mirza, A., Meurisse, Y.A., et al. Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic calcified stenosis: 18-year experience with 1133 patients. J Heart Valve Dis 15 (2006), 768–776.
42. Mohty, D., Dumesnil, J.G., Echahidi, N., et al. Impact of prosthesis patient mismatch on long-term survival after aortic valve replacement: influence of age, obesity and left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 53 (2009), 39–47.
43. Rahimtoola, S.H., The year in valvular heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:16 (2010), 1749–1752.
44. Wyss, T.R., Bigler, M., Stalder, M., et al. Absence of prosthesis-patient mismatch with the new generation of Edwards stented aortic bioprosthesis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 10 (2010), 884–887.