Quality of life in sexagenarians after aortic biological vs mechanical valve replacement: a single-center study in China

Abstract

Objective: This article aimed to study the quality of life and anxiety of sexagenarian patients who underwent aortic biological vs mechanical valve replacement in a single center in China. Methods: The clinical data of 78 patients aged 60 to 70 years who underwent aortic prosthetic valve replacement were retrospectively analyzed in our hospital from June 2017 to February 2018. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the type of prosthetic valve they received (biological valve group vs mechanical valve group). The SF-36 was completed by all patients at discharge and at one-year follow-up, and the cardiac anxiety questionnaire (CAQ) was also completed at one-year follow-up. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in general clinical data or SF-36 score at discharge. However, at one-year follow-up, the SF-36 scores were significantly higher in the biological valve group than in the mechanical valve group, and the CAQ scores in fear and anxiety, avoidance and attention in the mechanical valve group were significantly higher than those in the biological valve group. Conclusions: Based on the postoperative quality of life and anxiety scores of sexagenarian patients who underwent biological vs mechanical valve replacement in this study, a biological valve has more value than a mechanical valve for sexagenarians undergoing aortic valve replacement.

Effect of Implantation of a new Domestic Prosthesis in the Aortic Position on the Quality of Life of Patients With Degenerative Aortic Stenose, Survival Assessment and Development of Complications 1 Year Post-Surgery

“…W. Wang и соавт. [7] в 2020 г. опубликовали результаты исследования, в котором сравнили влияние механических и биологических протезов АК на КЖ пациентов в возрасте 60-70 лет. Авторы показали, что показатели опросника SF-36 выше у пациентов, перенесших биопротезирование АК.…”

Correction to: Quality of life in sexagenarians after aortic biological vs mechanical valve replacement: a single-center study in China

“…The original article [ 1 ] contains two errors in Table 1: The age in Biological AVR group should instead be 65.6 +/− 4.3 The age in Mechanical AVR group should instead be 64.8 +/− 5.1 …”