Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Comparison of outcomes after aortic valve replacement with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis using microsimulation
  1. J P A Puvimanasinghe1,
  2. J J M Takkenberg1,
  3. M B Edwards3,
  4. M J C Eijkemans2,
  5. E W Steyerberg2,
  6. L A van Herwerden1,
  7. K M Taylor3,
  8. G L Grunkemeier4,
  9. J D F Habbema2,
  10. A J J C Bogers1
  1. 1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  2. 2Centre for Clinical Decision Sciences, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam
  3. 3Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Imperial College School of Medicine, London, UK
  4. 4Providence Health System, Portland, Oregon, USA
  1. Correspondence to:
    Dr J P A Puvimanasinghe
    Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Room Bd 162a, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands; j.p.a.puvimanasingheerasmusmc.nl

Abstract

Background: Mechanical valves and bioprostheses are widely used for aortic valve replacement. Though previous randomised studies indicate that there is no important difference in outcome after implantation with either type of valve, knowledge of outcomes after aortic valve replacement is incomplete.

Objective: To predict age and sex specific outcomes of patients after aortic valve replacement with bileaflet mechanical valves and stented porcine bioprostheses, and to provide evidence based support for the choice of prosthesis.

Methods: Meta-analysis of published results of primary aortic valve replacement with bileaflet mechanical prostheses (nine reports, 4274 patients, and 25 726 patient-years) and stented porcine bioprostheses (13 reports, 9007 patients, and 54 151 patient-years) was used to estimate the annual risks of postoperative valve related events and their outcomes. These estimates were entered into a microsimulation model, which was employed to calculate age and sex specific outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

Results: Life expectancy (LE) and event-free life expectancy (EFLE) for a 65 year old man after implantation with a mechanical valve or a bioprosthesis were 10.4 and 10.7 years and 7.7 and 8.4 years, respectively. The lifetime risk of at least one valve related event for a mechanical valve was 48%, and for a bioprosthesis, 44%. For LE and EFLE, the age crossover point between the two valve types was 59 and 60 years, respectively.

Conclusions: Meta-analysis based microsimulation provides insight into the long term outcome after aortic valve replacement and suggests that the currently recommended age threshold for implanting a bioprosthesis could be lowered further.

  • EFLE, event-free life expectancy
  • SVD, structural valvar deterioration
  • UKHVR, United Kingdom Heart Valve Registry
  • aortic valve replacement
  • prognostic modelling
  • microsimulation
  • bioprosthesis

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes