Early And Midterm Outcomes Following Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Valves In Patients Aged 50 To 70 Years.

Objective: To compare 7-year survival and freedom from reoperation, as well as early clinical and hemodynamic outcomes, after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves in patients aged 50-70 years.

Methods: single-center retrospective cohort study including adults aged 50-70 years who underwent SAVR in 2012 with a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve. Median follow-up was 7 years. Univariable analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Log-Rank tests for survival and freedom from reoperation analyses. Multivariable time-to-event analyses were conducted using Cox Regression.

Results: Of a total of 193 patients, 76 (39.4%) received mechanical valves and 117 (60.6%) received bioprosthetic valves. A trend for better survival was found for mechanical prostheses when adjusting for EuroSCORE II (HR: 0.35; 95%CI: 0.12-1.02, p=0.054), but using a backward stepwise Cox regression prosthesis type was not retained by the model as an independent predictor of survival. Moreover, mechanical prostheses showed trends for higher freedom from reoperation (100% vs. 95.5%, Log-Rank, p=0.076), higher median EuroSCORE II (2.52% vs. 1.95%, p=0.06) and early mortality (7.9% vs. 2.6%, p=0.086). However, after adjusting for EuroSCORE II, there was no significant difference in early mortality (OR: 2.3, 95%CI: 0.5-10.5, p=0.272). Regarding hemodynamic performance at follow-up echocardiogram, there were no differences other than left ventricular mass regression, which was not as pronounced in the mechanical group (-12% vs. -21%, p=0.002).

Conclusions: Mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valves prostheses showed similar mid-term survival in the 50-70 age group. Further prospective and larger studies are needed to provide evidence-based recommendations on this topic.