Abstract:BACKGROUND In patients undergoing aortic‐valve or mitral‐valve replacement, either a mechanical or biologic prosthesis is used. Biologic prostheses have been increasingly favored despite limited evidence supporting this practice. METHODS We compared long‐term mortality and rates of reoperation, stroke, and bleeding between inverse‐probability‐weighted cohorts of patients who underwent primary aortic‐valve replacement or mitral‐valve replacement with a mechanical or biologic prosthesis in California in the period from 1996 through 2013. Patients were stratified into different age groups on the basis of valve position (aortic vs. mitral valve). RESULTS From 1996 through 2013, the use of biologic prostheses increased substantially for aortic‐valve and mitral‐valve replacement, from 11.5% to 51.6% for aortic‐valve replacement and from 16.8% to 53.7% for mitral‐valve replacement. Among patients who underwent aortic‐valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 15‐year mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 45 to 54 years of age (30.6% vs. 26.4% at 15 years; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.48; P=0.03) but not among patients 55 to 64 years of age. Among patients who underwent mitral‐valve replacement, receipt of a biologic prosthesis was associated with significantly higher mortality than receipt of a mechanical prosthesis among patients 40 to 49 years of age (44.1% vs. 27.1%; hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.35 to 2.63; P<0.001) and among those 50 to 69 years of age (50.0% vs. 45.3%; hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.30; P=0.01). The incidence of reoperation was significantly higher among recipients of a biologic prosthesis than among recipients of a mechanical prosthesis. Patients who received mechanical valves had a higher cumulative incidence of bleeding and, in some age groups, stroke than did recipients of a biologic prosthesis. CONCLUSIONS The long‐term mortality benefit that was associated with a mechanical prosthesis, as compared with a biologic prosthesis, persisted until 70 years of age among patients undergoing mitral‐valve replacement and until 55 years of age among those undergoing aortic‐valve replacement. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.)

Durability of biological valves implanted in aortic or mitral positions: A nationwide cohort study

Long-Term Outcomes of Bioprosthetic and Mechanical Valve Replacement for Patients Aged between 50 and 70 Years

Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic‐Valve and Mitral‐Valve Replacement

Long-term outcomes following aortic valve replacement in bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves

Mechanical or biological prosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients aged 45 to 74 years

LONG-TERM FOLLOW UP OF 351 CASES OF HEART VALVE REPLACEMENT WITH BIOPROSTHESES

Long‐Term Durability of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Prostheses in Patients with Bicuspid Versus Tricuspid Aortic Valve

Tissue versus mechanical mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50-70: a propensity-matched analysis

Effects of mitral valve disease etiology on the outcomes of mechanical and biological valve replacement: retrospective cohort study

Long-term outcomes of isolated mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in different age groups of propensity-matched patients

Age-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves

Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Under 50 Years: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Integrated Aortic-Valve-And-Ascending-Aortic Replacement Vs. Partial Replacement in Bicuspid Aortic Valve-Related Aortopathy

Infective endocarditis after surgical aortic or mitral valve replacement: A nationwide population-based study

Association between surgical aortic valve replacement and long-term outcomes in 50 to 65-year-olds: Results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study

Long‐Term Survival of Mitroflow and Perimount Aortic Valve Replacements

Outcomes of Different Mitral Valve Approaches Combined with Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Degenerative Valve Disease

Early and mid-term outcomes after aortic valve replacement using a novel tissue bioprosthesis: a systematic review

Should Mitral Valve Replacement Age Guidelines Be Lowered Due to Better Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve Durability?

Valve-sparing aortic root replacement: Long-term variables significantly associated with mortality and morbidity

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Pericardial Bioprosthesis in Chinese Patients with Single or Multiple Valve Replacement in Aortic, Mitral, or Tricuspid Positions.