Advertisement

Mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in patients <65 years old

Published:September 30, 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.08.028

      Objective

      Because of its durability, the mechanical valve is typically chosen for young patients undergoing mitral valve replacement (MVR). However, a bioprosthetic valve might have the benefit of valve-in-valve transcatheter valve replacement when valve failure occurs. We examined the outcomes in patients who had undergone mechanical valve MVR (MVRm) versus bioprosthetic valve MVR (MVRb) in patients aged <65 years.

      Methods

      A total of 768 consecutive patients aged <65 years, who had undergone MVR from January 1991 to June 2012 were identified. Propensity matching was used to derive a case-control subset for analysis. Long-term outcomes were collected by chart review, routine patient follow-up, and query of the Social Security Death Index. The postoperative and long-term outcomes of interest included combined stroke and embolic events, reoperations, and mortality.

      Results

      Of 768 consecutive patients, 627 were in the MVRm and 141 in the MVRb group. Propensity score matching yielded a cohort of 125 MVRb (89%) and 125 control MVRm patients with similar etiology mixes. The groups were similar in age (MVRm, 53.2 ± 9.0 years; MVRb, 53.8 ± 10.6 years; P = .617) and other preoperative characteristics. The postoperative outcomes were also similar between the 2 groups, including reoperation for bleeding, stroke, deep sternal infection, sepsis, and length of hospital stay. The operative mortality was also similar (MVRm, 5.6%; MVRb, 8.0%; P = .617). However, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed the MVRb group had a greater reoperation rate (P = .001) and shorter estimated survival (11.3 vs 13.5 years, P = .004). The incidence of bleeding and stroke or embolic events between the 2 groups was similar.

      Conclusions

      In the present report, MVRb for patients <65 years old was associated with a high reoperation rate and decreased survival. Although a future transcatheter valve-in-valve technique for a failed bioprosthetic valve might reduce the risk of reoperation, this finding confirms the safety of mechanical valves in this group.

      CTSNet classification

      Abbreviations and Acronyms:

      EMRs (electronic medical records), MVR (mitral valve replacement), SVD (structural valve deterioration), TMVR (transcatheter mitral valve replacement), VIV (valve-in-valve)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Gammie J.S.
        • Sheng S.
        • Griffith B.P.
        • Peterson E.D.
        • Rankin J.S.
        • O’Brien S.M.
        • et al.
        Trends in mitral valve surgery in the United States: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Database.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87: 1431-1439
        • Kaneko T.
        • Cohn L.C.
        • Aranki S.F.
        Tissue valve is the preferred option for patients aged 60 and older.
        Circulation. 2013; 128: 1365-1371
        • Bonow R.O.
        • Carabello B.A.
        • Chatterjee K.
        • de Leon A.C.
        • Faxon D.P.
        • Freed M.D.
        • et al.
        ACC/AHA 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease.
        Circulation. 2006; 114: e84-231
        • Vahanian A.
        • Alfieri O.
        • Andreotti F.
        • Antunes M.J.
        • Baron-Esquivias G.
        • Baumgartner H.
        • et al.
        Guidelines on the management of valvular heart disease.
        Eur Heart J. 2012; 33: 2451-2496
        • Oxenham H.
        • Bloomfield P.
        • Wheatley D.J.
        • Lee R.J.
        • Cunningham J.
        • Prescott R.J.
        • et al.
        Twenty years comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses.
        Heart. 2003; 89: 715-721
        • Hammermeister K.
        • Sethi G.K.
        • Henderson W.G.
        • Grover F.L.
        • Oprian C.
        • Rahimtoola S.H.
        Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36: 1152-1158
        • Masters R.G.
        • Haddad M.
        • Pipe A.L.
        • Veinot J.P.
        • Mesana T.
        Clinical outcomes with the Hancock II bioprosthetic valve.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2004; 78: 832-836
        • Jamieson W.R.
        • von Lipinski O.
        • Miyagishima R.T.
        • Burr L.H.
        • Janusz M.T.
        • Ling H.
        • et al.
        Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after mitral valve replacement.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005; 129: 1301-1308
        • Berrebi A.J.
        • Carpentier S.M.
        • Phan K.P.
        • Nguyen V.P.
        • Chauvaud S.M.
        • Carpentier A.
        Results of up to 9 years of high-temperature-fixed valvular bioprostheses in a young population.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 71: S353-S355
        • Ruel M.
        • Chan V.
        • Bedard P.
        • Kulik A.
        • Ressler L.
        • Lam K.
        • et al.
        Very long-term survival implications of heart valve replacement with tissue versus mechanical prostheses in adults <60 years of age.
        Circulation. 2007; 116: S294-S300
        • Kulik A.
        • Bedard P.
        • Lam B.K.
        • Rubens F.D.
        • Hendry P.J.
        • Masters R.G.
        • et al.
        Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacements in middle-aged patients.
        Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006; 30: 485-491
        • Cen Y.Y.
        • Glower D.D.
        • Landolfo K.
        • Lowe J.E.
        • Davis R.D.
        • Wolfe W.G.
        • et al.
        Comparison of survival after mitral valve replacement with biologic and mechanical valves in 1139 patients.
        J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001; 122: 569-577
        • Jamieson W.R.
        • Gudas V.M.
        • Burr L.H.
        • Janusz M.T.
        • Fradet G.J.
        • Ling H.
        • et al.
        Mitral valve disease: if the mitral valve is not reparable/failed repair, is bioprosthesis suitable for replacement?.
        Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009; 35: 104-110
        • Myken P.S.
        Seventeen-year experience with the St. Jude Medical Biocor porcine bioprosthesis.
        J Heart Valve Dis. 2005; 14: 486-492
        • Potter D.D.
        • Sundt III, T.M.
        • Zehr K.J.
        • Dearani J.A.
        • Daly R.C.
        • Mullany C.J.
        • et al.
        Risk of repeat mitral valve replacement for failed mitral valve prostheses.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2004; 78: 67-72
        • Jamieson W.R.
        • Burr L.H.
        • Miyagishima R.T.
        • Janusz M.T.
        • Fradet G.J.
        • Lichtenstein S.V.
        • et al.
        Reoperation for bioprosthetic mitral structural failure: risk assessment.
        Circulation. 2003; 108: S98-S102
        • Cohn L.H.
        • Aranki S.F.
        • Rizzo R.J.
        • Adams D.H.
        • Cogswell K.A.
        • Kinchla N.M.
        • et al.
        Decrease in operative risk of reoperative valve surgery.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 1993; 56: 15-20
        • Badhwar V.
        • Ofenloch J.C.
        • Rovin J.D.
        • van Gelder H.M.
        • Jacobs J.P.
        Noninferiority of closely monitored mechanical valves to bioprostheses overshadowed by early mortality benefit in younger patients.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 93: 748-753
        • Stassano P.
        • DiTommaso L.
        • Monaco M.
        • Iorio F.
        • Pepino P.
        • Spampinato N.
        • 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. 2009; 54: 1862-1868
        • Rahimtoola S.H.
        Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults: an update.
        J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55: 2413-2426
        • Jamieson W.R.
        • Miyagishima R.T.
        • Grunkemeier G.L.
        • Germann E.
        • Henderson C.
        • Lichtenstein S.V.
        • et al.
        Bileaflet mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 65 years and 65 years of age or older: major thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications.
        Can J Surg. 1999; 42: 27-36