Long-Term (up to 21 Years) Follow Up after Biological and Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement in Younger Patients

BACKGROUND: Despite the limited durability of biological aortic valves, increasing numbers of younger patients are choosing to receive them, due mainly to the lack of a need for permanent anticoagulation. Few data exist, however, regarding the outcomes of valve replacement in patients aged <55 years, and additional data are required in this patient population.

METHODS: Between 1993 and 2014, at the authors' institution, a total of 448 patients (237 males, 101 females; mean age 45.8 ± 8.0 years) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with either a mechanical prosthesis (M1 group, n = 318) or a biological prosthesis (B1 group, n = 130). The mean follow up was 8.5 ± 5.8 years (range: 4 days to 20.8 years) in the M1 group, and 4.9 ± 4.6 years (range: 2 days to 21 years) in the B1 group. The entire collective (EC) (n = 448 patients) was compared and analyzed with a selective collective (SC) (n = 109 patients) after exclusion of patients with concomitant procedures or comorbidities (M2 group, n = 74; B2 group, n = 35).

RESULTS: Early mortality was greater after biological AVR in the EC (6.1% versus 1.9%), but in the SC no early deaths were observed after both primary and redo procedures. The reoperation rate was greater after biological AVR in both collectives. The late mortality, survival and endocarditis rates were comparable in both collectives. Bleeding occurred more often in the EC after mechanical AVR.

CONCLUSIONS: Biological AVR in patients aged <55 years provides satisfactory outcomes, whereas reoperations were performed less commonly in patients with mechanical valve substitutes. In selective patients, AVR can be performed with zero mortality.