Revisiting aortic valve prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years: 10 years results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study.

OBJECTIVES: This population-based cohort study investigated mid-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve prosthesis in patients aged <50 years in a European social welfare state. METHODS: We analysed patient data from the main social insurance carriers in Austria (2010-2020). Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcome. Survival, reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure, embolic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage, bleeding other than intracerebral haemorrhage and major adverse cardiac events were evaluated as outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 991 patients were analysed. Regarding demographics, no major differences between groups were observed. Multivariable Cox regression revealed no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.352) with a median follow-up time of 6.2 years. Reoperation-free survival was decreased (hazard ratio = 1.560 [95% CI: 1.076-2.262], P = 0.019) and the risk for reoperation was increased (hazard ratio = 2.770 [95% CI: 1.402-5.472], P = 0.003) in patients who received bioprostheses. Estimated probability of death after reoperation was 0.23 (CL: 0.08-0.35) after 2 years and 0.34 (CL: 0.06-0.53) after 10 years over both groups. Regarding further outcomes, no significant differences between the two groups were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients below 50 years of age receiving aortic valve replacement, implantation of bioprostheses when compared to mechanical heart valve prostheses was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperations and reduced reoperation-free survival. Nevertheless, we could not observe a difference in overall survival. However, long-term follow-up has to evaluate that a significantly lower rate of reoperations may translate in consistently improved long-term survival.

Mechanical aortic valve prostheses offer a survival benefit in 50-65 year olds: AUTHEARTVISIT study.

BACKGROUND: The present population-based cohort study investigated long-term mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic (B) or mechanical aortic valve prostheses (M) in a European social welfare state. METHODS: We analysed patient data from health insurance records covering 98% of the Austrian population between 2010 and 2018. Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Further reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure and stroke were evaluated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 13,993 patients were analysed and the following age groups were examined separately: <50 years (727 patients: 57.77% M, 42.23% B), 50-65 years (2612 patients: 26.88% M, 73.12% B) and >65 years (10,654 patients: 1.26% M, 98.74% B). Multivariable Cox regression revealed that the use of B-AVR was significantly associated with higher mortality in patients aged 50-65 years compared to M-AVR (HR = 1.676 [1.289-2.181], p < 0.001). B-AVR also performed worse in a competing risk analysis regarding reoperation (HR = 3.483 [1.445-8.396], p = 0.005) and myocardial infarction (HR = 2.868 [1.255-6.555], p = 0.012). However, the risk of developing heart failure and stroke did not differ significantly after AVR in any age group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged 50-65 years who underwent M-AVR had better long-term survival, and a lower risk of reoperation and myocardial infarction. Even though anticoagulation is crucial in patients with M-AVR, we did not observe significantly increased stroke rates in patients with M-AVR. This evident survival benefit in recipients of mechanical aortic valve prostheses aged <65 years critically questions current guideline recommendations.

Lack of supervision after residential cardiac rehabilitation increases cardiovascular risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) is an important component of care for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and has been well documented and promoted by various health organizations and position statements worldwide. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether patients readmitted to CR on average 16 months after their previous discharge, maintained the reduction in CVD risk factors, maintained or improved functional capacity, occurrence of adverse cardiovascular events, and possible modifications in prescribed medications. METHODS: Five hundred and seventy patients (60+/-10 years) underwent cycle ergometry and blood sampling at the beginning, the end of 21+/-2 days of the previous CR, and again at readmission to CR. The CR consisted of cycling for 17+/-4 min at frequency of six times a week and daily walking for 45 min at 60-70% of the maximal individual heart rate. RESULTS: Blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides, and body mass index decreased significantly during CR. Resting blood pressure, maximal performance (watts), maximal oxygen uptake, and heart rate recovery improved significantly in 1 min (P<0.001). At readmission, all traditional CVD risk factors increased significantly, although medication was unchanged and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were partly replaced by angiotensin II receptor antagonists. Exercise performance remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: At readmission, we observed an increase in CVD risk factors, although, physical fitness remained stable. Thus, failure of lifestyle modification after CR indicates the cause for concern. Reinforcement of home setting sessions of CR patients or other strategies to enhance long-term compliance to lifestyle changes could reduce the observed attrition in CR benefits.