Rapid deployment valves versus conventional tissue valves for aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid deployment valves have been developed as a means to adjust for limitations in transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement for the management of aortic valve disease. To date, many studies have shown that although rapid deployment valves facilitate a shorter surgical aortic valve replacement, they offer no clinical benefit. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of rapid deployment valves with conventional surgical aortic valve replacement. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of all patients undergoing tissue aortic valve replacement at a single center. The majority of patients were men and aged more than 60 years. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: (1) rapid deployment valves and (2) conventional sutured valve. Inverse probability treatment weighting method was used to create a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests were used to determine if there were statistically significant differences in outcomes. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 2237 patients made up the study population from 2013 to 2019. After inverse probability treatment weighting, there were 295 patients in each group. Shorter cardiopulmonary bypass and crossclamp times were found with the rapid deployment valves. No statistically significant difference was found in the primary and secondary outcomes. There was a significant difference in the rate of permanent pacemaker insertion with a 7% pacemaker rate in the rapid deployment valve group (P < .009). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that rapid deployment valves offer no benefit in straightforward aortic valve replacement, and further study will help identify which patient population the valve is suited for.

Long-term Outcomes Following Mechanical or Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Young Women.

BACKGROUND: Studies performed to date reporting outcomes after mechanical or bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) have largely neglected the young female population. This study compares long-term outcomes in female patients aged < 50 years undergoing AVR with either a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve. METHODS: In this propensity-matched study, we compared outcomes after mechanical AVR (n = 57) and bioprosthetic AVR (n = 57) between 2004 and 2018. The primary outcome of this study is survival. Secondary outcomes include the rate of reoperation, stroke, myocardial infarction, rehospitalization for heart failure, and incidence of serious adverse events. Outcomes were measured over 15 years, with a median follow-up of 7.8 years. RESULTS: In patients receiving a mechanical AVR vs a bioprosthetic AVR, overall survival at median follow-up was equivalent, at 93%. There is a lower rate of reoperation in patients receiving a mechanical AVR vs a bioprosthetic AVR (1.8% vs 8.8%). The rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation was significantly higher in the mechanical AVR group vs the bioprosthetic AVR group (18.2% vs 7.3%). No significant difference was seen in the rate of serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide contemporary data demonstrating equivalent long-term survival between mechanical and bioprosthetic AVR, with higher rates of new atrial fibrillation after mechanical AVR, and higher rates of reoperation after bioprosthetic AVR. These results suggest that either valve type is safe, and that preoperative assessment and counselling, as well as the follow-up, medical treatment and indications for intervention, must be a collaborative decision-making process between the clinician and the patient.

CONTEXTE: Les études réalisées à ce jour portant sur le bilan après un remplacement mécanique ou bioprothétique de la valve aortique (RVA) ont largement négligé la population de jeunes femmes. Cette étude compare le pronostic à long terme chez les patientes âgées de moins de 50 ans qui subissent un RVA par une valve mécanique ou bioprothétique. MÉTHODES: Dans cette étude d'appariement par score de propension, nous avons comparé les résultats après un RVA mécanique (n = 57) et un RVA bioprothétique (n = 57) entre 2004 et 2018. Le principal critère d'évaluation consiste en l'étude de la survie. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprennent le taux de réopération, d'accident vasculaire cérébral, d'infarctus du myocarde, de réhospitalisation pour insuffisance cardiaque et l'incidence des événements indésirables graves. Les critères d'évaluation ont été mesurés sur une période de 15 ans, avec un suivi médian de 7,8 ans. RÉSULTATS: Pour les patientes soumises à un RVA mécanique par rapport à un RVA bioprothétique, la survie globale au suivi médiane était équivalente à 93 %. Le taux de réopération est plus faible chez les patientes avec un RVA mécanique que chez celles soumises à un RVA bioprothétique (1,8 % contre 8,8 %). Le taux de fibrillation auriculaire d'apparition récente était significativement plus élevé dans le groupe ayant eu un RVA mécanique que dans le groupe ayant eu un RVA bioprothétique (18,2 % contre 7,3 %). Aucune différence significative n'a été observée concernant le taux d'événements indésirables graves. CONCLUSIONS: Ces résultats fournissent des données actualisées démontrant une survie à long terme équivalente entre les RVA mécaniques et bioprothétiques, avec des taux plus élevés de fibrillation auriculaire d'apparition récente après une RVA mécanique, et des taux plus élevés de réopération après une RVA bioprothétique. Ces résultats suggèrent que chaque type de valve est sûr, et que l'évaluation et le counselling préopératoire, ainsi que le suivi, le traitement médical et les indications d'intervention, doivent être un processus de décision concerté entre le clinicien et le patient.