TY - JOUR
T1 - Mechanical aortic valve prostheses offer a survival benefit in 50-65 year olds
T2 - AUTHEARTVISIT study
AU - Traxler, Denise
AU - Krotka, Pavla
AU - Laggner, Maria
AU - Mildner, Michael
AU - Graf, Alexandra
AU - Reichardt, Berthold
AU - Wendt, Ralph
AU - Auer, Johann
AU - Moser, Bernhard
AU - Mascherbauer, Julia
AU - Ankersmit, Hendrik Jan
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank the Pharmacoeconomics Advisory Council of the Austrian Sickness Funds for providing the data, especially Ms. Karin Allmer for quality assurance of the database query and Mr. Ludwig Weissengruber for the organizational support in the data generation.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. European Journal of Clinical Investigation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.
PY - 2022/5
Y1 - 2022/5
N2 - BACKGROUND: The present population-based cohort study investigated long-term mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic (B) or mechanical aortic valve prostheses (M) in a European social welfare state.METHODS: We analysed patient data from health insurance records covering 98% of the Austrian population between 2010 and 2018. Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Further reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke were evaluated as secondary outcomes.RESULTS: A total of 13,993 patients were analysed and the following age groups were examined separately: <50 years (727 patients: 57.77% M, 42.23% B), 50-65 years (2612 patients: 26.88% M, 73.12% B) and >65 years (10,654 patients: 1.26% M, 98.74% B). Multivariable Cox regression revealed that the use of B-AVR was significantly associated with higher mortality in patients aged 50-65 years compared to M-AVR (HR = 1.676 [1.289-2.181], p < 0.001). B-AVR also performed worse in a competing risk analysis regarding reoperation (HR = 3.483 [1.445-8.396], p = 0.005) and myocardial infarction (HR = 2.868 [1.255-6.555], p = 0.012). However, the risk of developing heart failure and stroke did not differ significantly after AVR in any age group.CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 50-65 years who underwent M-AVR had better long-term survival, and a lower risk of reoperation and myocardial infarction. Even though anticoagulation is crucial in patients with M-AVR, we did not observe significantly increased stroke rates in patients with M-AVR. This evident survival benefit in recipients of mechanical aortic valve prostheses aged <65 years critically questions current guideline recommendations.
AB - BACKGROUND: The present population-based cohort study investigated long-term mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic (B) or mechanical aortic valve prostheses (M) in a European social welfare state.METHODS: We analysed patient data from health insurance records covering 98% of the Austrian population between 2010 and 2018. Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Further reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke were evaluated as secondary outcomes.RESULTS: A total of 13,993 patients were analysed and the following age groups were examined separately: <50 years (727 patients: 57.77% M, 42.23% B), 50-65 years (2612 patients: 26.88% M, 73.12% B) and >65 years (10,654 patients: 1.26% M, 98.74% B). Multivariable Cox regression revealed that the use of B-AVR was significantly associated with higher mortality in patients aged 50-65 years compared to M-AVR (HR = 1.676 [1.289-2.181], p < 0.001). B-AVR also performed worse in a competing risk analysis regarding reoperation (HR = 3.483 [1.445-8.396], p = 0.005) and myocardial infarction (HR = 2.868 [1.255-6.555], p = 0.012). However, the risk of developing heart failure and stroke did not differ significantly after AVR in any age group.CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 50-65 years who underwent M-AVR had better long-term survival, and a lower risk of reoperation and myocardial infarction. Even though anticoagulation is crucial in patients with M-AVR, we did not observe significantly increased stroke rates in patients with M-AVR. This evident survival benefit in recipients of mechanical aortic valve prostheses aged <65 years critically questions current guideline recommendations.
KW - Aortic Valve/surgery
KW - Bioprosthesis
KW - Cohort Studies
KW - Heart Failure/etiology
KW - Heart Valve Prosthesis
KW - Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects
KW - Humans
KW - Myocardial Infarction/etiology
KW - Retrospective Studies
KW - Stroke/epidemiology
KW - Treatment Outcome
KW - mechanical valve replacement
KW - aortic valve replacement
KW - biological valve replacement
KW - survival
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122140721&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/eci.13736
DO - 10.1111/eci.13736
M3 - Journal article
C2 - 34932232
SN - 0014-2972
VL - 52
SP - e13736
JO - European Journal of Clinical Investigation
JF - European Journal of Clinical Investigation
IS - 5
M1 - e13736
ER -