TY - JOUR
T1 - Revisiting aortic valve prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years
T2 - 10 years results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study
AU - Traxler, Denise
AU - Krotka, Pavla
AU - Reichardt, Berthold
AU - Copic, Dragan
AU - Veraar, Cecilia
AU - Mildner, Michael
AU - Wendt, Ralph
AU - Auer, Johann
AU - Mascherbauer, Julia
AU - Ankersmit, Hendrik Jan
AU - Graf, Alexandra
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
VC The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery.
PY - 2024/1/2
Y1 - 2024/1/2
N2 - OBJECTIVES: This population-based cohort study investigated mid-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve prosthesis in patients aged <50 years in a European social welfare state.METHODS: We analysed patient data from the main social insurance carriers in Austria (2010-2020). Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcome. Survival, reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure, embolic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage, bleeding other than intracerebral haemorrhage and major adverse cardiac events were evaluated as outcomes.RESULTS: A total of 991 patients were analysed. Regarding demographics, no major differences between groups were observed. Multivariable Cox regression revealed no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.352) with a median follow-up time of 6.2 years. Reoperation-free survival was decreased (hazard ratio = 1.560 [95% CI: 1.076-2.262], P = 0.019) and the risk for reoperation was increased (hazard ratio = 2.770 [95% CI: 1.402-5.472], P = 0.003) in patients who received bioprostheses. Estimated probability of death after reoperation was 0.23 (CL: 0.08-0.35) after 2 years and 0.34 (CL: 0.06-0.53) after 10 years over both groups. Regarding further outcomes, no significant differences between the two groups were observed.CONCLUSIONS: In patients below 50 years of age receiving aortic valve replacement, implantation of bioprostheses when compared to mechanical heart valve prostheses was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperations and reduced reoperation-free survival. Nevertheless, we could not observe a difference in overall survival. However, long-term follow-up has to evaluate that a significantly lower rate of reoperations may translate in consistently improved long-term survival.
AB - OBJECTIVES: This population-based cohort study investigated mid-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve prosthesis in patients aged <50 years in a European social welfare state.METHODS: We analysed patient data from the main social insurance carriers in Austria (2010-2020). Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcome. Survival, reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure, embolic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage, bleeding other than intracerebral haemorrhage and major adverse cardiac events were evaluated as outcomes.RESULTS: A total of 991 patients were analysed. Regarding demographics, no major differences between groups were observed. Multivariable Cox regression revealed no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.352) with a median follow-up time of 6.2 years. Reoperation-free survival was decreased (hazard ratio = 1.560 [95% CI: 1.076-2.262], P = 0.019) and the risk for reoperation was increased (hazard ratio = 2.770 [95% CI: 1.402-5.472], P = 0.003) in patients who received bioprostheses. Estimated probability of death after reoperation was 0.23 (CL: 0.08-0.35) after 2 years and 0.34 (CL: 0.06-0.53) after 10 years over both groups. Regarding further outcomes, no significant differences between the two groups were observed.CONCLUSIONS: In patients below 50 years of age receiving aortic valve replacement, implantation of bioprostheses when compared to mechanical heart valve prostheses was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperations and reduced reoperation-free survival. Nevertheless, we could not observe a difference in overall survival. However, long-term follow-up has to evaluate that a significantly lower rate of reoperations may translate in consistently improved long-term survival.
KW - Humans
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Heart Valve Prosthesis/adverse effects
KW - Aortic Valve/surgery
KW - Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/methods
KW - Cohort Studies
KW - Prosthesis Design
KW - Reoperation
KW - Bioprosthesis/adverse effects
KW - Cerebral Hemorrhage/etiology
KW - Propensity Score
KW - Treatment Outcome
KW - Retrospective Studies
KW - Prosthesis Failure
KW - Bioprosthesis
KW - Mechanical aortic valve prosthesis
KW - Aortic valve replacement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85181582176&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/ejcts/ezad308
DO - 10.1093/ejcts/ezad308
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 37756697
SN - 1010-7940
VL - 65
JO - European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery
JF - European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery
IS - 1
M1 - ezad308
ER -