Comparative analysis of long-term outcomes of mechanical vs biological aortic valve prostheses in patients aged 60–65 years: a single-center retrospective cohort study
S. T. Enginoev,
N. N. Ilov,
A. A. Zenkov,
T. K. Rashidova,
A. M-S. Umahanova,
I. I. Chernov,
V. N. Kolesnikov Abstract
Objective: to compare early and long-term outcomes of aortic valve (AV) replacement with mechanical versus biological prostheses in patients aged 60–65 years.
Materials and methods: а retrospective cohort study included 383 patients who underwent isolated AV replacement between 2009 to 2019. Propensity score matching yielded two comparable groups (n=84 mechanical, n=85 biological). Evaluated outcomes included in-hospital complications, survival rates, stroke incidence, and reintervention requirements. The median follow-up was 84 months (53–113 months).
Results: both groups had zero in-hospital mortality. Postoperative complications and stroke incidence were comparable. The mechanical prosthesis group demonstrated significantly lower peak transvalvular gradients (25.0±8.7 mmHg vs 28.3±11.8 mmHg, p=0.029). Ten-year survival was 90.7% for mechanical valves vs 72% for biological prostheses (p = 0.038). Reoperations and stroke rates were similar between groups (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: in patients aged 60–65 years, mechanical aortic valve prostheses demonstrate superior long-term survival and hemodynamic out- comes. The choice of prosthesis type should be individualized considering the patient’s clinical characteristics and life expectancy.
About the Authors
S. T. Enginoev
FSBI «Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery»; FSBEI HE «Astrakhan State Medical University» of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Soslan T. Enginoev - MD, PhD, cardiovascular surgeon; associate professor of the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Faculty of Postgraduate Education (FPE)
4, Pokrovskaya Rosha street, Astrakhan , 414004
121, Bakinskaya street, Astrakhan, 414000
N. N. Ilov
FSBI «Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery»; FSBEI HE «Astrakhan State Medical University» of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikolay N. Ilov- MD, PhD, cardiovascular surgeon; professor of the department of Cardiovascular Surgery, FPO
4, Pokrovskaya Rosha street, Astrakhan , 414004
121, Bakinskaya street, Astrakhan, 414000
A. A. Zenkov
FSBI «Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery»; FSBEI HE «Astrakhan State Medical University» of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Alexander A. Zenkov - MD, PhD, head of the 1st cardiac surgery department; Head of the Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, FPE, Cardiovascular Surgeon
4, Pokrovskaya Rosha street, Astrakhan , 414004
121, Bakinskaya street, Astrakhan, 414000
T. K. Rashidova
FSBI «Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Tamara K. Rashidova - MD, ultrasound diagnostician, Functional and Ultrasound Diagnostics Unit
4, Pokrovskaya Rosha street, Astrakhan , 414004
A. M-S. Umahanova
FSBEI HE «Astrakhan State Medical University» of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aminat MS. Umahanova - clinical resident, Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, FPE
121, Bakinskaya street, Astrakhan, 414000
I. I. Chernov
FSBI «Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Igor I. Chernov - MD, PhD, deputy chief physician for surgical care, Cardiovascular Surgeon
121, Bakinskaya street, Astrakhan, 414000
V. N. Kolesnikov
FSBI «Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery»; FSBEI HE «Astrakhan State Medical University» of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladimir N. Kolesnikov - MD, PhD; chief physician, cardiovascular surgeon
4, Pokrovskaya Rosha street, Astrakhan , 414004
121, Bakinskaya street, Astrakhan, 414000
References
1. Otto C.M., Prendergast B. Aortic-valve stenosis--from patients at risk to severe valve obstruction. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:744–56. PMID: 25140960. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1313875
2. Vahanian A., Beyersdorf F., Praz F., et al. 2021 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 2022;43:561–632. PMID: 34453165. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehab395
3. Head S.J., Celik M. Kappetein A.P. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J 2017;38: 2183–9.PMID: 28444168. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx141
4. Bourguignon T., Bouquiaux-Stablo A-L, Candolfi P., et al. Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve in aortic position. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99:831–7. PMID: 25583467. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2014.09.030
5. Glaser N., Jackson V., Holzmann M.J. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37: 2658–67. PMID: 26559386. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv580
6. Vankayalapati D.K., Segun-Omosehin O., El Ghazal N., et al. Long-Term Outcomes of Mechanical Versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus 2024;16:1–24. PMID: 3837 1071. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.52550
7. Lu R., Dismorr M., Glaser N., Sartipy U. Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical Valves vs Perimount Bioprostheses in 50- to 69-Year-Old Patients. JACC Adv. 2023;2:100359. PMID: 38938255. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacadv.2023.100359
8. Flynn C.D., Curran N.P., Chan S., et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical outcomes comparing mechanical valve replacement and bioprosthetic valve replacement in infective endocarditis. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2019;8:587–99. PMID: 31832349.DOI: 10.21037/acs.2019.10.03
9. Goldstone A.B., Chiu P., Baiocchi M., et al. Mechanical or Biologic Prostheses for Aortic-Valve and Mitral-Valve Replacement. N Engl J Med 2017;377:1847–57. PMID: 29117490. DOI: 10.1056/nejmoa1613792
10. Dvir D., Bourguignon T., Otto C.M., et al. Standardized Definition of Structural Valve Degeneration for Surgical and Transcatheter Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves. Circulation 2018;137:388–99. PMID: 29358344. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.030729
11. Chiang Y.P., Chikwe J., Moskowitz A.J., et al. Survival and long-term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA 2014;312:1323–9. PMID: 25268439. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.12679
12. Brown J.M., O’Brien S.M, Wu C., et al. Gammie JS. Isolated aortic valve replacement in North America comprising 108,687 patients in 10 years: changes in risks, valve types, and outcomes in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;137:82–90. PMID: 19154908. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.08.015
Review
For citations:
Enginoev S.T., Ilov N.N., Zenkov A.A., Rashidova T.K., Umahanova A.M., Chernov I.I., Kolesnikov V.N. Comparative analysis of long-term outcomes of mechanical vs biological aortic valve prostheses in patients aged 60–65 years: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Minimally Invasive Cardiovascular Surgery. 2025;1(1):51-61. (In Russ.)
Views:
13
Email this article 