National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements
- PMID: 25791947
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.01.052
National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements
Abstract
Objective: Substantial controversy surrounds the choice between a mechanical versus bioprosthetic prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR), based on age. This study aims to investigate national trends and in-hospital outcomes of the 2 prosthesis choices.
Methods: All patients aged >18 years in the National Inpatient Sample who received an AVR between 1998 and 2011 were considered. Valve-type use was examined by patient, procedural, and hospital characteristics, after which we matched patients based on their propensity score for receiving a bioprosthetic valve and compared their in-hospital outcomes.
Results: Bioprosthetic valves comprised 53.3% of 767,375 implanted valves, an increase in use from 37.7% in the period 1998 to 2001 to 63.6% in the period 2007 to 2011. The median age was 74 years for patients receiving bioprosthetic valves, and 67 years for those receiving mechanical valves. Use of bioprosthetic valves increased across all age groups, most markedly in patients age 55 to 64 years. Compared with patients receiving mechanical valves, these patients had a higher incidence of renal disease (8.0% vs 4.2%), coronary artery disease (58.5% vs 50.5%), concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (46.7% vs 41.9%), and having surgery in a high-volume (>250 cases per year) center (31.3% vs 18.5%). Patients receiving bioprosthetic valves had a higher occurrence of in-hospital complications (55.9% vs 48.6%), but lower in-hospital mortality (4.4% vs 4.9%) than patients receiving mechanical valves. This difference was confirmed in propensity-matched analyses (complications: 52.7% vs 51.5%; mortality: 4.3% vs 5.2%).
Conclusions: Use of bioprosthetic valves in AVR increased dramatically from 1998 to 2011, particularly in patients age 55 to 64 years. Prosthesis selection varied significantly by facility, with low-volume facilities favoring mechanical valves. Aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic valve, compared with a mechanical valve, was associated with lower in-hospital mortality.
Keywords: Aortic valve replacement; bioprosthetic valves; comparative effectiveness; in-hospital mortality; national Inpatient sample; propensity score matching.
Copyright © 2015 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Prosthetic valves and the unending quest for the holy grail.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 May;149(5):1242-3. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.02.014. Epub 2015 Feb 14. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015. PMID: 25796411 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Mid- to long-term outcome comparison of the Medtronic Hancock II and bi-leaflet mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age: a propensity-matched analysis.Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016 Mar;22(3):280-6. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv347. Epub 2015 Dec 15. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016. PMID: 26675564 Free PMC article.
-
Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: a propensity-matched analysis.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014 Nov;148(5):1931-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.12.042. Epub 2014 Jan 15. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014. PMID: 24521965
-
Survival and Long-Term Outcomes of Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 55 to 65 Years.Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Jun;66(4):313-321. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1602825. Epub 2017 May 16. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018. PMID: 28511244
-
What is the best approach in a patient with a failed aortic bioprosthetic valve: transcatheter aortic valve replacement or redo aortic valve replacement?Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015 Jun;20(6):837-43. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivv037. Epub 2015 Mar 8. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2015. PMID: 25754372 Review.
-
What type of valve is most appropriate for osteogenesis imperfecta patients?Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014 Sep;19(3):499-504. doi: 10.1093/icvts/ivu152. Epub 2014 May 29. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014. PMID: 24876219 Review.
Cited by
-
Multicenter, propensity-weighted comparison of stented, rapid-deployment and new-generation aortic valves.Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2024 Aug 22;54:101487. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcha.2024.101487. eCollection 2024 Oct. Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc. 2024. PMID: 39263409 Free PMC article.
-
Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedures: Challenges and Future Directions.J Clin Med. 2024 Aug 12;13(16):4723. doi: 10.3390/jcm13164723. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 39200865 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden.J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2024 Jul 18;11(7):227. doi: 10.3390/jcdd11070227. J Cardiovasc Dev Dis. 2024. PMID: 39057647 Free PMC article.
-
Aortic valve area index values of Trifecta implants correlate with energy loss and increased valve stress.J Artif Organs. 2024 Jun 25. doi: 10.1007/s10047-024-01453-z. Online ahead of print. J Artif Organs. 2024. PMID: 38916826
-
Self-expandable transcatheter valve is a potentially useful option for a failing small surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve.Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024 Jun 5. doi: 10.1007/s11748-024-02048-4. Online ahead of print. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024. PMID: 38834925
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
