Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: A propensity-matched analysis

Abstract

In patients aged <65 years, despite an increase in the rate of reoperation with stented bioprosthetic valves and an increase in major bleeding events with mechanical valves, there is no significant difference in mortality at late follow-up.

Aortic valve replacement in middle-aged patients: Is the increased use of bioprostheses justified?

“…Some previous studies found that patients in this age group who received a mechanical valve had a better survival [8,9] whereas others did not find a survival difference between patients with a mechanical valve and a bioprosthesis [10,11].…”

2017 AHA/ACC Focused Update of the 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

“…estimate severity because of the crescentic shape of the regurgitant orifice, and multiple parameters must be used to determine the severity of MR� 67,68 Even so, on the basis of the criteria used for determination of "severe" MR in RCTs of surgical intervention for secondary MR, 69- [76][77][78][79][80][81][82] 2014 recommendation remains current.…”

Very Long-Term Outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Aortic Valve in Patients Aged 60 or Younger

“…T he use of bioprostheses has considerably increased in the past decade and has led to a substantial reduction of mechanical valve implantations [1]. This trend may be explained by an increasing number of studies reporting improved long-term durability of more recent tissue valve models [2]. Nevertheless, biologic aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients younger than 60 years remains controversial, and the expected event rates for surgical and valve-related complications have not been clearly determined in this patient subset.…”