[Safety of biological valves for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis].

B Q Zeng,S Q Yu,Y Chen,W Zhai,B Liu,S Y Zhan,F Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2020.03.023

2020-01-01

Abstract:The all-cause mortality for conventional biological AVR was 6.33/100 patient-years. Thromboembolism, PPM implantation, reoperation, stroke, and SVD were major long term complications.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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

Wei Zhao,Zhongli Chen,Sipeng Chen,Junzhe Du,Heng Zhang,Yan Zhao,Li He,Wei Feng,Hansong Sun,Zhe Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2409253

2023-09-18

Abstract:Background: The choice between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves for aortic valve replacement (AVR) and mitral valve replacement (MVR) among patients aged 50-70 years is controversial. We compared the long-term outcomes of patients using bioprosthetic or mechanical valves to provide clinical evidence for valve selection. Methods: From 2002 to 2007, patients aged 50-70 years who underwent isolated AVR or MVR at the Fuwai Hospital were enrolled. After inverse probability-weighted (IPW) propensity balancing, we evaluated long-term mortality, stroke, and bleeding events between patients receiving mechanical and biological prostheses for MVR or AVR. Results: A total of 1639 patients were included in the study, including 1181 patients undergoing MVR (median follow-up: 11.6 years) and 458 patients undergoing AVR (median follow-up: 11.4 years). After IPW adjustment, there was no significant difference in long-term mortality and stroke rate between patients using bioprosthetic and mechanical valves for MVR [mortality: log-rank p = 0.802; stroke: log-rank p = 0.983] and AVR [mortality: log-rank p = 0.815; stroke: log-rank p = 0.537]. Landmark analysis at 12.5 years yielded significantly lower mortality in the patients receiving mechanical valves compared with bioprosthetic valves in the MVR cohort (p = 0.028). Patients receiving mechanical aortic valves displayed an increased risk of bleeding compared with those who received bioprosthetic aortic valves [Hazard Ratio (95% Confidence interval): 2.51 (1.06-5.93) p = 0.036]. Conclusions: For patients aged 50-70, there was no significant difference in overall long-term mortality between mechanical and bioprosthetic valve recipients. Patients receiving mechanical valves for MVR displayed lower mortality after 12.5 years follow-up. For AVR, bioprosthetic valves were associated with a lower risk of bleeding.
Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Under 50 Years: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Nav Warraich,Michel Pompeu Sá,Xander Jacquemyn,Danial Ahmad,Derek Serna-Gallegos,Ibrahim Sultan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.07.006

2024-09-15

Abstract:To compare the long-term outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged <50 years, we performed a study-level meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event data including studies published by December of 2023. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included reoperation, major bleeding, and stroke. A total of 5 studies met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 4,245 patients (2,311 mechanical and 1,934 bioprosthetic). All studies were observational and the mean age of groups across the studies ranged from 38.2 to 43.0 years. The median follow-up time was 11.4 years (interquartile range 6.9 to 15.0). Bioprosthetic AVR was associated with reduced overall survival and higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 1.170 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.002 to 1.364, p = 0.046), increased risk of reoperation over time (HR 2.581, 95% CI 2.102 to 3.168, p <0.001), decreased risk of major bleeding (HR 0.500, 95% CI 0.367 to 0.682, p <0.001), and decreased risk of stroke (HR 0.751, 95% C, 0.565 to 0.998, p = 0.049) compared with mechanical AVR in patients aged <50 years. In conclusion, for patients aged <50 years, bioprosthetic AVR is associated with increased mortality and risk of reoperation compared with mechanical valves. In contrast, mechanical AVR is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events and stroke. These aspects should be carefully considered during the selection of valve type in this age group; however, we should keep in mind that the statistically significant differences in the risk of all-cause death and stroke might not be clinically relevant (because of marginal statistical significance).
Mechanical or biological prosthesis for aortic valve replacement in patients aged 45 to 74 years

Daokun Sun,Hartzell V Schaff,Kevin L Greason,Ying Huang,Gabor Bagameri,Alberto Pochettino,Patrick A DeValeria,Joseph A Dearani,Richard C Daly,Kevin P Landolfo,Robert J Wiechmann,Sorin V Pislaru,Juan A Crestanello

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2024.06.029

2024-07-02

Abstract:Objective: The selection of valve prostheses for patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement remains controversial. In this study, we compared the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with biological or mechanical aortic valve prostheses. Methods: We evaluated late results among 5762 patients aged 45 to 74 years who underwent biological or mechanical aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass from 1989 to 2019 at 4 medical centers. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare late survival; the age-dependent effect of prosthesis type on long-term survival was evaluated by an interaction term between age and prosthesis type. Incidences of stroke, major bleeding, and reoperation on the aortic valve after the index procedure were compared between prosthesis groups. Results: Overall, 61% (n = 3508) of patients received a bioprosthesis. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.7% (n = 58) in the bioprosthesis group and 1.5% (n = 34) in the mechanical group (P = .75). During a mean follow-up of 9.0 years, the adjusted risk of mortality was higher in the bioprosthesis group (hazard ratio, 1.30, P < .001). The long-term survival benefit associated with mechanical prosthesis persisted until 70 years of age. Bioprosthesis (vs mechanical prosthesis) was associated with a similar risk of stroke (P = .20), lower risk of major bleeding (P < .001), and higher risk of reoperation (P < .001). Conclusions: Compared with bioprostheses, mechanical aortic valves are associated with a lower adjusted risk of long-term mortality in patients aged 70 years or less. Patients aged less than 70 years undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement should be informed of the potential survival benefit of mechanical valve substitutes.
Long-term outcomes following aortic valve replacement in bioprosthetic vs mechanical valves

Abeline R Watkins,Ryaan El-Andari,Nicholas M Fialka,Jimmy Jh Kang,Yongzhe Hong,Sabin J Bozso,Devilliers Jonker,Michael Moon,Jayan Nagendran,Jeevan Nagendran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrtlng.2024.09.016

Abstract:Background: Aortic valve disease(AVD) accounts for 33 % of valvular heart disease(VHD) but causes over 60 % of VHD mortality. For surgical AVR, mechanical valves are recommended for patients <50 years old and bioprosthetic valves for those >70 years old. Objectives: To investigate the long-term differences following AV replacement(AVR) comparing bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients aged 50-70. Methods: 4,927 patients underwent AVR, 744 of which were propensity-matched 2:1 for bioprosthetic and mechanical valves. Outcomes included mortality, morbidity, and rates of reoperation. Results: The average age of the propensity-matched groups was 57 and 56.7 years, and female sex accounted for 26.4 % and 25.0 % for the bioprosthetic and mechanical valve groups, respectively. Other baseline demographics and comorbidities were similar between the groups. There were no deaths at 30 days and complication rates did not differ between groups(p > 0.05). Mortality at 1, 5, and 15 years was similar between groups. Reoperation rates at 5 and 10 years did not significantly differ between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves(p = 0.84, p = 0.31), although at 15-year follow-up, patients with bioprosthetic valves were more likely to require reoperation(21.2 % versus 9.7 %, adjusted hazard ratio 3.65, 95 % confidence interval 1.07-12.5, p = 0.0.39). Conclusions: Patients receiving AVR from 50 to 70 years old have similar long-term outcomes irrespective of whether they received bioprosthetic or mechanical valves, with only reoperation being significantly different at 15 years follow-up. With low rates of reoperation, mortality, and avoidance of anticoagulation, bioprosthetic valves are a reasonable option for patients 50-70 years old, although mechanical valves still provide a durability benefit for young patients.
Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic‐Valve and Mitral‐Valve Replacement

P. Chiu,M. Baiocchi,B. Lingala,A. Goldstone,W. Patrick,M. Fischbein,J. Woo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1613792

IF: 158.5

2017-11-08

New England Journal of Medicine

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.)

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

Chun-Yu Chen,Chia-Pin Lin,Kuo-Chun Hung,Yi-Hsin Chan,Victor Chien-Chia Wu,Yu-Ting Cheng,Jih-Kai Yeh,Pao-Hsien Chu,An-Hsun Chou,Shao-Wei Chen,Yi‐Hsin Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2023.05.038

IF: 5.113

2023-06-01

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Biologic prostheses are being increasingly used for aortic and mitral valve replacement (AVR and MVR). This study evaluated the long-term durability of bioprosthetic valves in the mitral and aortic positions, as no well-designed population-based studies have addressed this issue before.METHODS: Using Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database, we compared biologic valve durability in the mitral and aortic positions in patients hospitalized between 2001 and 2017, with reoperation as the primary outcome. Both between-subject and within-subject designs were used, and the propensity score matching cohort (1:1 ratio) was created for the former.RESULTS: We identified a total of 10,308 patients, 5462 of whom received AVR, 3901 received MVR, and 945 received double valve replacement. Both AVR and MVR cohorts had 2259 patients after matching. During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (range, 1 day to 17.9 years), the reoperation rate in the MVR cohort (3.5%) was higher than that in the AVR cohort (2.6%) (hazard ratio 1.41; 95% CI, 1.01-1.98). A higher risk of all-cause death was observed in the MVR cohort (36.5%) than in the AVR cohort (32.6%) (hazard ratio 1.21; 95% CI, 1.10-1.34). Among patients receiving double valve replacement with the same prosthesis type, valves implanted in the aortic position were considerably less likely to require reimplantation.CONCLUSIONS: Bioprosthetic valve placement in the aortic position is associated with superior outcomes in terms of durability, long-term mortality, and perioperative morbidity. Developing novel interventions and enhancing valve durability would expand bioprosthesis use for valve replacement.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

Farid Foroutan,Gordon H Guyatt,Kathleen O'Brien,Eva Bain,Madeleine Stein,Sai Bhagra,Daegan Sit,Rakhshan Kamran,Yaping Chang,Tahira Devji,Hassan Mir,Veena Manja,Toni Schofield,Reed A Siemieniuk,Thomas Agoritsas,Rodrigo Bagur,Catherine M Otto,Per O Vandvik,Kathleen O’Brien

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i5065

2016-09-28

BMJ

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of survival, stroke, atrial fibrillation, structural valve deterioration, and length of hospital stay after surgical replacement of an aortic valve (SAVR) with a bioprosthetic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PubMed (non-Medline records only), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 2002 to June 2016.STUDY SELECTION: Eligible observational studies followed patients after SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve for at least two years.METHODS: Reviewers, independently and in duplicate, evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias for patient important outcomes. We used the GRADE system to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence. Published survival curves provided data for survival and freedom from structural valve deterioration, and random effect models provided the framework for estimates of pooled incidence rates of stroke, atrial fibrillation, and length of hospital stay.RESULTS: In patients undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve, median survival was 16 years in those aged 65 or less, 12 years in those aged 65 to 75, seven years in those aged 75 to 85, and six years in those aged more than 85. The incidence rate of stroke was 0.25 per 100 patient years (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.54) and atrial fibrillation 2.90 per 100 patient years (1.78 to 4.79). Post-SAVR, freedom from structural valve deterioration was 94.0% at 10 years, 81.7% at 15 years, and 52% at 20 years, and mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (95% confidence interval 9 to 15).CONCLUSION: Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR with a bioprosthetic valve can expect only slightly lower survival than those without aortic stenosis, and a low incidence of stroke and, up to 10 years, of structural valve deterioration. The rate of deterioration increases rapidly after 10 years, and particularly after 15 years.
Transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valves: an updated meta-analysis

Peter S Giannaris,Viren S Sehgal,Branden Tejada,Roshan Pandey,Eamon Vega,Kathryn Varghese,Adham Ahmed,Kenzy H Ismail,Ahmed K Awad,Dr Irbaz Hameed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5837/bjc.2024.007

2024-02-20

Abstract:Patients with bicuspid aortic valves (BAV) are predisposed to the development of aortic stenosis. We performed a pairwise meta-analysis, comparing the efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with BAV. Medical databases were queried to pool comparative studies of interest. Single-arm studies, conference presentations, animal studies, and studies that involved patients with tricuspid aortic morphology were excluded. Outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random effects model in R. There were 60,858 patients with BAV (7,565 TAVR, 53,293 SAVR) included. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day major bleeding (RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.63, p=0.01) but a higher risk of new permanent pacemaker placement (RR 2.17, 95%CI 1.03 to 4.58, p=0.04). No significant differences were seen with other explored outcomes, including 30-day/mid-term mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, major vascular complications, paravalvular leak, and conduction abnormalities. In conclusion, in patients with BAV, TAVR is associated with a lower risk of 30-day major bleeding but has an increased risk for permanent pacemaker implantation when compared with SAVR. Future large-scale randomised trials comparing both the short-and long-term outcomes of SAVR and TAVR in patients with BAV are needed to assess the efficacy of each modality in a controlled population across long follow-up durations.
Age-Based Outcomes After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves

Eishan Ashwat,Danial Ahmad,Michel Pompeu Sá,Derek-Serna Gallegos,Yisi Wang,Floyd Thoma,James A Brown,Pyongsoo Yoon,Johannes Bonatti,David Kaczorowski,David West,Danny Chu,Ibrahim Sultan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.07.004

2024-09-01

Abstract:Recommendations for prosthesis type in older patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are established, albeit undervalidated. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after bioprosthetic versus mechanical SAVR across various age groups. This was a retrospective study using an institutional SAVR database. All patients who underwent isolated SAVR were compared across valve types and age strata (<65 years, 65 to 75 years, >75 years). Patients who underwent concomitant operations, aortic root interventions, or previous aortic valve replacement were excluded. Objective survival and aortic valve reinterventions were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival estimation and multivariate regression were performed. A total of 1,847 patients underwent SAVR from 2010 to 2023. A total of 1,452 patients (78.6%) received bioprosthetic valves, whereas 395 (21.4%) received mechanical valves. Of those who received bioprosthetic valves, 349 (24.0%) were aged <65 years, 627 (43.2%) were 65 to 75 years, and 476 (32.8%%) were older than 75 years. For patients who received mechanical valves, 308 (78.0%) were aged <65 years, 84 (21.3%) were between 65 and 75 years, and 3 (0.7%) were >75 years. The median follow-up in the total cohort was 6.2 (2.6 to 8.9) years. No statistically significant differences were observed in early-term Kaplan-Meier survival estimates between SAVR valve types in all age groups. However, the cumulative incidence estimates of aortic valve reintervention were significantly higher in patients aged under 65 years who received bioprosthetic than those who received mechanical valves, with 5-year reintervention rates of 5.8% and 3.1%, respectively (p = 0.002). On competing risk analysis for valve reintervention, bioprosthetic valves were significantly associated with an increased hazard of aortic valve reintervention (hazard ratio 3.35, 95% confidence interval 1.73 to 6.49, p <0.001). In conclusion, SAVR with bioprosthetic valves (particularly, in patients aged <65 years) was comparable in survival to mechanical valve SAVR but significantly associated with increased valve reintervention rates.
Benefit of Anticoagulation Early After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Using Bioprosthetic Valves

Ying Huang,Hartzell V Schaff,Kavya S Swarna,Lindsey R Sangaralingham,Rick A Nishimura,Joseph A Dearani,Juan A Crestanello,Kevin L Greason

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.08.012

Abstract:Objective: To compare all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) receiving anticoagulation with warfarin versus patients with no systemic anticoagulation. Patients and methods: Using data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, we investigated adult patients having bioprosthetic sAVR with or without coronary artery bypass from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2019. Patients were classified into groups of nonwarfarin or warfarin (≥30 days of continuous prescription coverage after sAVR). One-to-one propensity score (PS) matching was used to adjust for group differences. Results: Of 10,589 patients having sAVR, 7659 (72.3%) were in the nonwarfarin group and 2930 (27.7%) were in the warfarin group. After PS matching, 2930 pairs of patients were analyzed. Median follow-up was 4.1 months (interquartile range [IQR], 2.6-7.4 months) for the warfarin group and 21.3 months (IQR, 7.8-24.0 months) for the nonwarfarin group. Overall mortality was lower for the warfarin group than for the nonwarfarin group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 1.00; P=.047), and there was a trend toward decreased cumulative incidence of thromboembolic events (subdistribution HR [SHR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.07; P=.09). Cumulative incidence of major bleeding events was higher for the warfarin group vs the nonwarfarin group (SHR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.94; P=.002). Results were similar in a subgroup analysis of patients undergoing isolated sAVR. Conclusion: During the prescription coverage period, warfarin use after bioprosthetic sAVR was associated with lower all-cause mortality and decreased risk of thromboembolism compared with not receiving warfarin. However, warfarin use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events.
Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yi Zhang,Tian-Yuan Xiong,Yi-Ming Li,Yi-Jun Yao,Jing-Jing He,Hao-Ran Yang,Zhong-Kai Zhu,Fei Chen,Yuanweixiang Ou,Xi Wang,Qi Liu,Xi Li,Yi-Jian Li,Yan-Biao Liao,Fang-Yang Huang,Zhen-Gang Zhao,Qiao Li,Xin Wei,Yong Peng,Sen He,Jia-Fu Wei,Wen-Xia Zhou,Ming-Xia Zheng,Yun Bao,Xuan Zhou,Hong Tang,Wei Meng,Yuan Feng,Mao Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2022.794850

IF: 3.6

2022-03-16

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Objective We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical adverse events in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs. tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) anatomy and the efficacy of balloon-expandable (BE) vs. self-expanding (SE) valves in the BAV population. Comparisons aforementioned will be made stratified into early- and new-generation devices. Differences of prosthetic geometry on CT between patients with BAV and TAV were presented. In addition, BAV morphological presentations in included studies were summarized. Method Observational studies and a randomized controlled trial of patients with BAV undergoing TAVR were included according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Results A total of 43 studies were included in the final analysis. In patients undergoing TAVR, type 1 BAV was the most common phenotype and type 2 BAV accounted for the least. Significant higher risks of conversion to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), the need of a second valve, a moderate or severe paravalvular leakage (PVL), device failure, acute kidney injury (AKI), and stroke were observed in patients with BAV than in patients with TAV during hospitalization. BAV had a higher risk of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) both at hospitalization and a 30-day follow-up. Risk of 1-year mortality was significantly lower in patients with BAV than that with TAV [odds ratio (OR) = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.97, p = 0.01]. BE transcatheter heart valves (THVs) had higher risks of annular rupture but a lower risk of the need of a second valve and a new PPI than SE THVs. Moreover, BE THV was less expanded and more elliptical in BAV than in TAV. In general, the rates of clinical adverse events were lower in new-generation THVs than in early-generation THVs in both BAV and TAV. Conclusions Despite higher risks of conversion to SAVR, the need of a second valve, moderate or severe PVL, device failure, AKI, stroke, and new PPI, TAVR seems to be a viable option for selected patients with severe bicuspid aortic stenosis (AS), which demonstrated a potential benefit of 1-year survival, especially among lower surgical risk population using new-generation devices. Larger randomized studies are needed to guide patient selection and verified the durable performance of THVs in the BAV population.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
The Impact of Bicuspid Aortic Valve on Long-term Outcomes After Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement

Alexander Makkinejad,Divyaam Satija,Katelyn Monaghan,Karen Kim,Shinichi Fukuhara,Himanshu J Patel,Bo Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2024.07.006

2024-07-20

Abstract:Background: There are limited data comparing the outcomes of aortic valve replacement surgery between patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) vs tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) morphology. Methods: From January 2000 to June 2022, 1122 patients with TAV (n = 562) or BAV (n = 560) underwent surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with the same type of bovine pericardial stented bioprosthesis. Propensity score matching identified 350 pairs by matching for age, sex, operative status, chronic lung disease, prior stroke, diabetes, ejection fraction, renal failure on dialysis, coronary artery disease, prior cardiac surgery, and concomitant procedures. The primary end points were long-term survival and reoperation. Results: Perioperative outcomes, including reoperation for bleeding, atrial fibrillation, heart block requiring pacemaker, stroke, need for dialysis, and operative mortality, were similar between the matched groups. Survival at 10 years was 67% (95% CI, 59%-74%) in the BAV group and 54% (95% CI, 46%-61%) in the TAV group (P = .001). BAV valve was a significant protective factor for late mortality, with a hazard ratio of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.45-0.81; P < .001). Risk factors for late mortality included age, chronic lung disease, low ejection fraction, and renal failure on dialysis. Cumulative incidence of aortic valve reintervention at 10 years was similar between the groups at 10% in the BAV group and 4.9% in the TAV group (P = .55). Conclusions: Patients with BAV likely could not be considered the same as patients with TAV when deciding on the approach of aortic valve intervention.
Antithrombotic management after aortic valve replacement with biological prosthesis: a meta-analysis

Mikko Uimonen,Ilari Kuitunen,Ville Ponkilainen,Ari Mennander,Mikko S. Mattila

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02863-z

2024-06-26

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

Abstract:Abstract Background We aimed to summarise the existing knowledge regarding antithrombotic medications following surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) using a biological valve prosthesis. Methods We performed a meta-analysis of studies that reported the results of using antithrombotic medication to prevent thromboembolic events after SAVR using a biological aortic valve prosthesis and recorded the outcomes 12 months after surgery. Since no randomised controlled trials were identified, observational studies were included. The analyses were conducted separately for periods of 0–12 months and 3–12 months after surgery. A random effects model was used to calculate pooled outcome event rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The search yielded eight eligible observational studies covering 6727 patients overall. The lowest 0- to 12-month mortality was observed in patients with anticoagulation (2.0%, 95% CI 0.4–9.7%) and anticoagulation combined with antiplatelet therapy (2.2%, 95% CI 0.9–5.5%), and the highest was in patients without antithrombotic medication (7.3%, 95% CI 3.6–14.2%). Three months after surgery, mortality was lower in anticoagulant patients (0.5%, 95% CI 0.1–2.6%) than in antiplatelet patients (3.0%, 95% CI 1.2–7.4%) and those without antithrombotics (3.5%, 95% CI 1.3–9.3%). There was no eligible evidence of differences in stroke rates observed among medication strategies. At 0- to 12-month follow-up, all antithrombotic treatment regimens resulted in an increased bleeding rate (antiplatelet 4.2%, 95% CI 2.9–6.1%; anticoagulation 7.5%, 95% CI 3.8–14.4%; anticoagulation combined with antiplatelet therapy 8.3%, 95% CI 5.7–11.8%) compared to no antithrombotic medication (1.1%, 95% CI 0.4–3.4%). At 3- to 12-month follow-up, there was up to an eight-fold increase in the bleeding rate in patients with anticoagulation combined with antiplatelet therapy when compared to those with no antithrombotic medication. Overall, the evidence certainty was ranked as very low. Conclusion Although this meta-analysis reveals that anticoagulation therapy has a beneficial tendency in terms of mortality at 1 year after biological SAVR and suggests potential advantages in continuing anticoagulation beyond 3 months, it is limited by very low evidence certainty. The imperative for cautious interpretation and the urgent need for more robust randomised research underscore the complexity of determining optimal antithrombotic strategies in this patient population.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Infective endocarditis after surgical aortic or mitral valve replacement: A nationwide population-based study

Hsiu-An Lee,Victor Chien-Chia Wu,Yi-Shin Chan,Yu-Ting Cheng,Jen-Kuang Lee,Pao-Hsien Chu,Shao-Wei Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2021.12.027

2021-12-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: Evidence regarding the incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis and its association with the use of mechanical or biologic prosthetic valves is limited.METHODS: Patients who underwent aortic or mitral valve replacement in the years 2000 to 2017 were identified from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and grouped according to the type of prosthesis used (mechanical or biologic). Propensity score matching was performed to reduce confounding.RESULTS: A total of 22,844 patients were included, with 11,950 (52.2%) and 10,934 (47.8%) in the mechanical prosthesis and biologic prosthesis groups, respectively. After matching, each group contained 5441 patients. During follow-up, patients with a biologic prosthesis had a significantly higher risk of infective endocarditis (IE) than those with a mechanical valve (3.4% vs 1.9%; subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.40-2.26). Moreover, biologic prostheses were associated with greater risks of all-cause mortality and redo valve surgery, but lesser risks of ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding, and gastrointestinal bleeding. In subgroup analysis, biologic prostheses were consistently associated with a greater risk of IE in all subgroups, specifically single-valve replacement-aortic, single-valve replacement-mitral, double-valve replacement, active IE (IE diagnosed during index hospitalization), any IE (active or old), and not having a history of IE.CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study, biologic prosthesis use was associated with a greater risk of IE during follow-up compared with mechanical valve use. However, mechanical valve use was associated with a greater risk of ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic complications.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems,respiratory system
Immediate and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Michel Pompeu Sá,Xander Jacquemyn,Panagiotis T Tasoudis,Jef Van den Eynde,Ozgun Erten,Aleksander Dokollari,Gianluca Torregrossa,Serge Sicouri,Alexander Weymann,Arjang Ruhparwar,Thanos Athanasiou,Basel Ramlawi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.16840

Abstract:Background: Outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis and bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) must be better investigated. Methods: A meta-analysis including studies published by January 2022 reporting immediate outcomes (in-hospital death, stroke, acute kidney injury [AKI], major bleeding, new permanent pacemaker implantation [PPI], paravalvular leakage [PVL]), mortality in the follow-up (with Kaplan-Meier curves for reconstruction of individual patient data). Results: Five studies met our eligibility criteria. No statistically significant difference was observed for in-hospital death, stroke, AKI, and PVL. TAVI was associated with lower risk of major bleeding (odds ratio [OR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12-0.69; p = .025), but higher risk of PPI (OR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.05-3.77; p = .041). In the follow-up, mortality after TAVI was significantly higher in the analysis with the largest samples (HR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.01-1.53, p = .043), but no statistically significant difference was observed with risk-adjusted populations (HR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86-1.32, p = .57). Landmark analyses suggested a time-varying risk with TAVI after 10 and 13 months in both largest and risk-adjusted populations (HR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.45-3.12, p < .001; HR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.11-2.61, p = .015, respectively). Conclusion: Considering the immediate outcomes and comparable overall survival observed in risk-adjusted populations, TAVI can be used safely in selected BAV patients. However, a time-varying risk is present (favoring SAVR over TAVI at a later timepoint). This finding was likely driven by higher rates of PPI with TAVI.
Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in stenotic bicuspid aortic valve compared to tricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mohamed Zghouzi,Heba Osman,Waqas Ullah,Abdul-Rahman Suleiman,Parveen Razvi,Mukhlis Abdalrazzak,Firas Rabbat,Mowaffak Alraiyes,Yasar Sattar,Rodrigo Bagur,Timir Paul,Andrija Matetic,Mamas A Mamas,Nasser Lakkis,M Chadi Alraies

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14779072.2022.2094368

Abstract:Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a safe and effective alternative to surgical replacement for tricuspid aortic valve (TAV) stenosis. However, utilization of TAVI for aortic stenosis in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) compared to TAV remains controversial. Methods: We queried online databases with various keywords to identify relevant articles. We compared major cardiovascular events and procedural outcomes using a random effect model to calculate odds ratios (OR). Results: We included a total of 22 studies comprising 189,693 patients (BAV 12,669 vs. TAV 177,024). In the pooled analysis, there were no difference in TAVI for BAV vs. TAV for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), vascular complications, acute kidney injury (AKI), coronary occlusion, annulus rupture, and reintervention/reoperation between the groups. The incidence of stroke (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.1-1.39), paravalvular leak (PVLR) (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.26-1.61), and the need for pacemaker (OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06-1.26) was less in the TAV group compared to the BAV group, while incidence of life-threatening bleeding was higher in the TAV group. Subgroup analysis mirrored pooled outcomes except for all-cause mortality. Conclusion: The use of TAVI for the treatment of aortic stenosis in selective BAV appears to be safe and effective.
Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Previous Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Yi-ming Li,Jia-yu Tsauo,Kai-yu Jia,Yan-biao Liao,Fan Xia,Zheng-gang Zhao,Mao Chen,Yong Peng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2020.612155

IF: 3.6

2021-02-10

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Background: Many patients who have aortic stenosis and are transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) candidates have underwent prior cardiac surgery (PCS). The aim of this study was to provide a robust summary comparison between patients with PCS who underwent TAVR vs. surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published articles on PubMed/Medline, Ovid, EMBASE, and Scopus from 2002 to 2019. Results: A total of 13 studies were finally included, yielding a total of 23,148 participants. There was no statistical difference with 30-day [OR: 1.02 (0.86–1.21)] or 1-year mortality [OR: 1.18 (0.86–1.61)] between the two groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that high-risk patients who underwent TAVR with the transapical approach were associated with increased risk of mortality [OR: 1.45 (1.00–2.11)]. However, those who underwent TAVR with endovascular approach had a comparable outcome with SAVR. Conclusions: Primary outcomes after endovascular TAVR were similar to those with SAVR and superior to transapical TAVR treatment group in patients with PCS.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Long-Term Outcomes of Tricuspid Valve Replacement With Mechanical Versus Tissue Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Michel Pompeu Sá,Nidhi Iyanna,Nika Samadzadeh Tabrizi,Xander Jacquemyn,Danial Ahmad,James A Brown,Sarah Yousef,Derek Serna-Gallegos,Pyongsoo D Yoon,Ibrahim Sultan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.06.010

2024-08-15

Abstract:Tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) with mechanical versus tissue valves remains a controversial subject. To evaluate the long-term effects of types of valves on patient-relevant outcomes, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data of studies published by March 15, 2024 (according to referred the Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines). A total of 21 studies met our eligibility criteria and included 7,166 patients (mechanical: 2,495 patients, 34.8%). Patients who underwent mechanical TVR had a lower risk of death than those who received a tissue valve (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70 to 0.84, p <0.001). Mechanical TVR was associated with lifetime gain, as evidenced by the restricted mean survival time, which was 2.2 years longer in patients who underwent TVR with mechanical valves (12.4 vs 10.2 years, p <0.001). Our landmark analysis for reoperations revealed the following: from the time point 0 to 7 years, we found no difference in the risk of reoperation between mechanical and tissues valves (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.61, p = 0.946); however, from the time point 7 years onward, we found that mechanical TVR had a lower risk of reoperation in the follow-up (HR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.72, p = 0.001). The meta-regression analysis demonstrated a modulating effect of atrial fibrillation on the association between mechanical valves and mortality; the HRs for all-cause death tended to decrease in the presence of populations with a larger proportion of atrial fibrillation (p = 0.018). In conclusion, our results suggest that TVR with mechanical valves, whenever considered clinically reasonable and accepted by patients as an option, can offer a better long-term survival and lower risk of reoperation in the long run.
Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Giuseppe Talanas,Angelo Laconi,Dean J Kereiakes,Pierluigi Merella,Michael J Reardon,Andrea Spano,Gerardo Petretto,Francesco Lauriola,Marta Casula,Valentina Micheluzzi,Mehriban Isgender,Yiannis Chatzizisis,Michael E Farkouh,Alexandra J Lansky,Nicolo Piazza,Michele Portoghese,Gavino Casu,Eliano Pio Navarese

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2024.102143

2024-05-15

Abstract:Background: We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing long-term outcomes of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe aortic stenosis. The short-term efficacy and safety of TAVR are proven, but long-term outcomes are unclear. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials comparing TAVR vs SAVR at the longest available follow-up. The primary end point was death or disabling stroke. Secondary end points were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, stroke, pacemaker implantation, valve thrombosis, valve gradients, and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023481856). Results: Seven trials (N = 7785 patients) were included. Weighted mean trial follow-up was 5.76 ± 0.073 years. Overall, no significant difference in death or disabling stroke was observed with TAVR vs SAVR (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; P = .70). Mortality risks were similar. TAVR resulted in higher pacemaker implantation and moderate-to-severe paravalvular leaks compared to SAVR. Results were consistent across different surgical risk profiles. As compared to SAVR, self-expanding TAVR had lower death or stroke risk (P interaction = .06), valve thrombosis (P interaction = .06), and valve gradients (P interaction < .01) but higher pacemaker implantation rates than balloon-expandable TAVR (P interaction < .01). Conclusions: In severe aortic stenosis, the long-term mortality or disabling stroke risk of TAVR is similar to SAVR, but with higher risk of pacemaker implantation, especially with self-expanding valves. As compared with SAVR, the relative reduction in death or stroke risk and valve thrombosis was greater with self-expanding than with balloon-expandable valves.
Meta-Analysis Comparing Results of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Patients With <i>Severe</i> Aortic Stenosis

Xinlin Zhang,Tingyu Wang,Rongfang Lan,Qing Dai,Lina Kang,Lian Wang,Yong Wang,Wei Xu,Biao Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.10.057

2020-01-01

Abstract:Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a promising strategy for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis. We aimed to compare TAVR with surgical aortic-valve replacement (SAVR) and determine the performance of TAVR over time and within several subgroups. We included 8 randomized trials comparing TAVR versus SAVR. Compared with SAVR, TAVR was associated with a lower rate of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 30-day (odds ratio [OR], 0.72; p = 0.004), 1-year (OR, 0.83; p = 0.01), and 2-year (OR, 0.86; p = 0.02), but not at long-term follow-up (rate ratio [RR], 1.02 [confidence interval 0.92 to 1.13]; p = 0.67). Notably, 5-year data showed numerically higher incidence in TAVR (RR, 1.11 [confidence interval 0.97 to 1.27]; p = 0.12). The risks associated with TAVR versus SAVR increased over time, showing a significant interaction (p for interaction = 0.01), as were for new-onset atrial fibrillation and rehospitalization. Incidences of major bleeding, new-onset fibrillation, and acute kidney injury were lower in TAVR, whereas transient ischemic attack, major vascular complications, permanent pacemaker implantation, reintervention, and paravalvular leak were lower in SAVR. Incidences for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were not statistically different. TAVR with transfemoral approach and new-generation valve was associated with reduction in all-cause mortality or disabling stroke compared with corresponding comparators. In conclusion, TAVR was associated with a lower risk for allcause mortality or disabling stroke within 2 years, but not at long-term follow-up compared with SAVR; the risks seems to increase over time. More data are needed to determine longer-term performance of TAVR. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Safety of biological valves for aortic valve replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies

Transcatheter versus surgical valve replacement in patients with bicuspid aortic valves: an updated meta-analysis

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

Benefit of Anticoagulation Early After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Using Bioprosthetic Valves

Patients With Bicuspid Aortic Stenosis Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Impact of Bicuspid Aortic Valve on Long-term Outcomes After Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement

Antithrombotic management after aortic valve replacement with biological prosthesis: a meta-analysis

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

Immediate and late outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in bicuspid valves: Meta-analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data

Safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in stenotic bicuspid aortic valve compared to tricuspid aortic valve: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Previous Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

Long-Term Outcomes of Tricuspid Valve Replacement With Mechanical Versus Tissue Valves: Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data

Long-Term Outcomes of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

Meta-Analysis Comparing Results of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic-Valve Replacement in Patients With <i>Severe</i> Aortic Stenosis