Abstract
Background:The long-term results of aortic valve replacement (AVR; n=737) with bileaflet mechanical prosthesis (MP) or Carpentier-Edwards Perimount bioprostheses (BP) were evaluated in different age groups.Methods and Results:Since 1981, a total of 737 prostheses (424 bileaflet MP vs. 313 BP) were implanted for AVR in 278 patients aged ≥70 years (79 MP vs. 199 BP), in 191 patients aged 60–69 years (128 MP vs. 63 BP) and in 268 patients aged <60 years (217 MP vs. 51 BP). Follow-up was completed for 6,523 patient-years in 98.5% of cases. Among the patients ≥70 years, both the actuarial survival rate (P=0.0434) and freedom from valve-related morbidity (P=0.0205) were better in the BP group than in the MP group without any difference in occurrence of structural valve deterioration in both groups. Among the patients aged 60–69, anticoagulant-related complications occurred less often in the BP group (P=0.0134) without any difference in long-term survival. Among the patients aged <60, long-term survival was significantly better in the MP group, whereas freedom from anticoagulant-related events did not differ.Conclusions:The use of BP is suitable in patients aged ≥70 years, while the use of bileaflet MP is preferable in patients aged <60 years. Among patients aged 60–69 years, the use of BP is acceptable because of the lower incidence of anticoagulant-related events and the equivalent long-term survival. (Circ J 2014; 78: 2688–2695)
