Life expectancy after surgical aortic valve replacement for low-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved ejection fraction.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) can modify the natural history of severe aortic stenosis (SAS). However, compared with the general population, these patients have a loss of life expectancy. The life expectancy of patients who undergo SAVR due to low-gradient SAS with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown. METHODS: We included all patients between 50 and 65 years who underwent isolated SAVR in 27 Spanish centers during an 18-year period. We analyzed observed and expected survival at 18 years in patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF and all other types of SAS. We used propensity score matching to compare the life expectancy of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF vs those with high-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. RESULTS: We analyzed 5084 patients, of whom 413 had low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF. For these patients, observed survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 86.6% (95%CI, 85.3-87.8), 75% (95%CI, 72.7-77.2), and 63.5% (95%CI, 58.8-67.8). Expected survival at 10, 15 and 18 years was 90.2%, 82.1%, and 75.7%. In the matched sample, survival of patients with low-gradient SAS with preserved LVEF was similar to that of patients with high-gradient with preserved LVEF, log-rank test, P=.95; HR=1 (95%CI, 0.7-1.4; P=.95). CONCLUSIONS: There is a loss of life expectancy in patients with all types of SAS undergoing SAVR. This loss is higher in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and lower in patients with low-gradient or high-gradient aortic stenosis with preserved LVEF. The benefit of surgery is similar between these last 2 groups.

Life expectancy after aortic valve replacement in young patients.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: In young patients with severe aortic stenosis, it is unknown whether their life expectancy restored after aortic valve replacement (AVR) is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed all patients aged between 50 and 65 years who underwent isolated AVR in 27 Spanish centers during an 18-year period. We compared observed and expected survival at 15 years of follow-up. We repeated all analyses for patients without complications in the postoperative period. RESULTS: A total of 5084 patients were analyzed. For the overall sample, observed survival at 10 and 15 years was 85.3% (95%CI, 84.1%-86.4%) and 73.7% (95%CI, 71.6%-75.6%), respectively. Expected survival was 90.1% and 82.1%. Cumulative relative survival for 1, 5, 10 and 15 years of follow-up was 97.4% (95%CI, 96.9%-97.9%), 96.5% (95%CI, 95.7%-97.3%), 94.7% (95%CI, 93.3%-95.9%), and 89.8% (95%CI, 87.3%-92.1%). For patients without complications, cumulative relative survival for 1, 5, 10 and 15 years was 100.3% (95%CI, 99.8%-100.5%), 98.9% (95%CI 97.6% -99.9%), 97.3% (95%CI, 94.9%-99.4%), and 91.9% (95%CI, 86.5%-96.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Life expectancy in young patients who have severe aortic stenosis and undergo AVR is lower than that of the general population. Life expectancy of individuals without complications during the postoperative period is also reduced. Therefore, baseline characteristics are likely the main factors that explain the reduction in life expectancy.

Differences in life expectancy between men and women after aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Some researchers have observed an increased number of deaths during the follow-up of young patients who undergo aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis, suggesting that this procedure does not restore their life expectancy. Our goal was to confirm these findings and explore sex-based differences. METHODS: All patients between 50 and 65 years of age who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement in 27 Spanish centres during an 18-year period were included. We compared observed and expected survival at 15 years of follow-up and estimated the cumulative incidence of death from a competing risks point of view. We stratified by sex and analysed if being a woman was an independent risk factor for death. RESULTS: For men, the observed survival at 10 and 15 years of follow-up was 85% [95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6%-86.4%] and 72.3% (95% CI 69.7%-74.7%), respectively whereas the expected survival was 88.1% and 78.8%. For women, the observed survival at 10 and 15 years was 85% (95% CI 82.8%-86.9%) and 73% (95% CI 69.1%-76.4%), whereas the expected survival was 94.6% and 89.4%. At 15 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of death due to the disease in men and women was 8.2% and 16.7%, respectively. In addition, being a woman was an independent risk factor for death (hazard ratio = 1.23 (95% CI 1.02-1.48; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: After the aortic valve replacement, men and women do not have their life expectancy restored, but this loss is much higher in women than in men. In addition, being a woman is a risk factor for long-term death. Reasons for these findings are unknown and must be investigated.

Biological or mechanical prostheses for isolated aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50-65 years: the ANDALVALVE study.

OBJECTIVES: The decision about whether to use a biological or a mechanical prosthesis for aortic valve replacement remains controversial in patients between 50 and 65 years of age and has yet to be addressed in a Mediterranean population. This research aimed to analyse long-term survival and major morbidity rates (30-day mortality, stroke, any prosthetic reoperation and major bleeding) within this population. METHODS: Our multicentre observational retrospective study included all subjects aged 50-65 years who had a primary isolated aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis at 7 public hospitals from Andalusia (Spain) between 2000 and 2015. Concomitant surgery, reoperations and endocarditis were the exclusion criteria. A total of 1443 patients were enrolled in the study (272 with biological and 1171 with mechanical valves). Multivariate analyses including a 2:1 propensity score matching (506 mechanical and 257 biological prostheses) were conducted. RESULTS: Bioprostheses were implanted in 18.8% (n = 272): 35% were women; the mean EuroSCORE-I was 3%. The mean follow-up was 8.1 ± 4.9 years in a matched sample: 8.8 ± 4.9 years in those receiving a mechanical vs 7.1 ± 4.5 years in those receiving a biological prosthesis (P = 0.001). In the paired sample, the 15-year survival rate was 73% in those who had a biological vs 76% in those who had a mechanical valve [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.20; P = 0.159]. No significant differences were observed in patients ≥55 years old (74% of 15-year survival in both groups: HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.56-1.34; P = 0.527). A higher rate of major bleeding was found in patients with a mechanical prosthesis (P = 0.004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among those with a biological prosthesis (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term survival was comparable in patients above 55 years of age. Mechanical prostheses were associated with more major bleeding and bioprostheses, with more reoperations. A bioprosthesis in patients above 55 years old is a reasonable choice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03239509.