Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients

D. S. Peterseim, Y. Y. Cen, S. Cheruvu, K. Landolfo, T. M. Bashore, J. E. Lowe, W. G. Wolfe, D. D. Glower

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

94 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to optimize selection criteria of biologic versus mechanical valve prostheses for aortic valve replacement. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed for 841 patients undergoing isolated, first-time aortic valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards (n = 429) or St Jude Medical (n = 412) prostheses. Results: Patients with Carpentier-Edwards and St Jude Medical valves had similar characteristics. Ten-year survival was similar in each group (Carpentier-Edwards 54% ± 3% versus St Jude Medical 50% ± 6%; P = .4). Independent predictors of worse survival were older age, renal or lung disease, ejection fraction less than 40 %, diabetes, and coronary disease. Carpentier-Edwards versus St Jude Medical prostheses did not affect survival (P = .4). Independent predictors of aortic valve reoperation were younger age and Carpentier-Edwards prosthesis. The linearized rates of thromboembolism were similar, but the linearized rate of hemorrhage was lower with Carpentier-Edwards prostheses (P < .01). Perivalvular leak within 6 months of operation was more likely with St Jude Medical than with Carpentier-Edwards prostheses (P = .02). Estimated 10-year survival free from valve-related morbidity was better for the St Jude Medical valve in patients aged less than 65 years and was better for the Carpentier-Edwards valve in patients aged more than 65 years. Patients with renal disease, lung disease (in patients more than age 60 years), ejection fraction less than 40%, or coronary disease had a life expectancy of less than 10 years. Conclusions: For first-time, isolated aortic valve replacement, mechanical prostheses should be considered in patients under age 65 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. Bioprostheses should be considered in patients over age 65 years or with lung disease (in patients over age 60 years), renal disease, coronary disease, ejection fraction less than 40%, or a life expectancy less than 10 years.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)890-897
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume117
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1999
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Aortic Valve
Prostheses and Implants
Life Expectancy
Lung Diseases
Coronary Disease
Survival
Kidney
Bioprosthesis
Thromboembolism
Reoperation
Patient Selection
Hemorrhage
Morbidity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Peterseim, D. S., Cen, Y. Y., Cheruvu, S., Landolfo, K., Bashore, T. M., Lowe, J. E., ... Glower, D. D. (1999). Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 117(5), 890-897. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70368-5

Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. / Peterseim, D. S.; Cen, Y. Y.; Cheruvu, S.; Landolfo, K.; Bashore, T. M.; Lowe, J. E.; Wolfe, W. G.; Glower, D. D.

In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 117, No. 5, 1999, p. 890-897.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Peterseim, DS, Cen, YY, Cheruvu, S, Landolfo, K, Bashore, TM, Lowe, JE, Wolfe, WG & Glower, DD 1999, 'Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients', Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, vol. 117, no. 5, pp. 890-897. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70368-5
Peterseim, D. S. ; Cen, Y. Y. ; Cheruvu, S. ; Landolfo, K. ; Bashore, T. M. ; Lowe, J. E. ; Wolfe, W. G. ; Glower, D. D. / Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients. In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. 1999 ; Vol. 117, No. 5. pp. 890-897.
@article{c1ba462631d64f34b8c5d8b77cb13341,
title = "Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients",
abstract = "Objective: The purpose of this study was to optimize selection criteria of biologic versus mechanical valve prostheses for aortic valve replacement. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed for 841 patients undergoing isolated, first-time aortic valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards (n = 429) or St Jude Medical (n = 412) prostheses. Results: Patients with Carpentier-Edwards and St Jude Medical valves had similar characteristics. Ten-year survival was similar in each group (Carpentier-Edwards 54{\%} ± 3{\%} versus St Jude Medical 50{\%} ± 6{\%}; P = .4). Independent predictors of worse survival were older age, renal or lung disease, ejection fraction less than 40 {\%}, diabetes, and coronary disease. Carpentier-Edwards versus St Jude Medical prostheses did not affect survival (P = .4). Independent predictors of aortic valve reoperation were younger age and Carpentier-Edwards prosthesis. The linearized rates of thromboembolism were similar, but the linearized rate of hemorrhage was lower with Carpentier-Edwards prostheses (P < .01). Perivalvular leak within 6 months of operation was more likely with St Jude Medical than with Carpentier-Edwards prostheses (P = .02). Estimated 10-year survival free from valve-related morbidity was better for the St Jude Medical valve in patients aged less than 65 years and was better for the Carpentier-Edwards valve in patients aged more than 65 years. Patients with renal disease, lung disease (in patients more than age 60 years), ejection fraction less than 40{\%}, or coronary disease had a life expectancy of less than 10 years. Conclusions: For first-time, isolated aortic valve replacement, mechanical prostheses should be considered in patients under age 65 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. Bioprostheses should be considered in patients over age 65 years or with lung disease (in patients over age 60 years), renal disease, coronary disease, ejection fraction less than 40{\%}, or a life expectancy less than 10 years.",
author = "Peterseim, {D. S.} and Cen, {Y. Y.} and S. Cheruvu and K. Landolfo and Bashore, {T. M.} and Lowe, {J. E.} and Wolfe, {W. G.} and Glower, {D. D.}",
year = "1999",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70368-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "117",
pages = "890--897",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "0022-5223",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Long-term outcome after biologic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in 841 patients

AU - Peterseim, D. S.

AU - Cen, Y. Y.

AU - Cheruvu, S.

AU - Landolfo, K.

AU - Bashore, T. M.

AU - Lowe, J. E.

AU - Wolfe, W. G.

AU - Glower, D. D.

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study was to optimize selection criteria of biologic versus mechanical valve prostheses for aortic valve replacement. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed for 841 patients undergoing isolated, first-time aortic valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards (n = 429) or St Jude Medical (n = 412) prostheses. Results: Patients with Carpentier-Edwards and St Jude Medical valves had similar characteristics. Ten-year survival was similar in each group (Carpentier-Edwards 54% ± 3% versus St Jude Medical 50% ± 6%; P = .4). Independent predictors of worse survival were older age, renal or lung disease, ejection fraction less than 40 %, diabetes, and coronary disease. Carpentier-Edwards versus St Jude Medical prostheses did not affect survival (P = .4). Independent predictors of aortic valve reoperation were younger age and Carpentier-Edwards prosthesis. The linearized rates of thromboembolism were similar, but the linearized rate of hemorrhage was lower with Carpentier-Edwards prostheses (P < .01). Perivalvular leak within 6 months of operation was more likely with St Jude Medical than with Carpentier-Edwards prostheses (P = .02). Estimated 10-year survival free from valve-related morbidity was better for the St Jude Medical valve in patients aged less than 65 years and was better for the Carpentier-Edwards valve in patients aged more than 65 years. Patients with renal disease, lung disease (in patients more than age 60 years), ejection fraction less than 40%, or coronary disease had a life expectancy of less than 10 years. Conclusions: For first-time, isolated aortic valve replacement, mechanical prostheses should be considered in patients under age 65 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. Bioprostheses should be considered in patients over age 65 years or with lung disease (in patients over age 60 years), renal disease, coronary disease, ejection fraction less than 40%, or a life expectancy less than 10 years.

AB - Objective: The purpose of this study was to optimize selection criteria of biologic versus mechanical valve prostheses for aortic valve replacement. Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed for 841 patients undergoing isolated, first-time aortic valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards (n = 429) or St Jude Medical (n = 412) prostheses. Results: Patients with Carpentier-Edwards and St Jude Medical valves had similar characteristics. Ten-year survival was similar in each group (Carpentier-Edwards 54% ± 3% versus St Jude Medical 50% ± 6%; P = .4). Independent predictors of worse survival were older age, renal or lung disease, ejection fraction less than 40 %, diabetes, and coronary disease. Carpentier-Edwards versus St Jude Medical prostheses did not affect survival (P = .4). Independent predictors of aortic valve reoperation were younger age and Carpentier-Edwards prosthesis. The linearized rates of thromboembolism were similar, but the linearized rate of hemorrhage was lower with Carpentier-Edwards prostheses (P < .01). Perivalvular leak within 6 months of operation was more likely with St Jude Medical than with Carpentier-Edwards prostheses (P = .02). Estimated 10-year survival free from valve-related morbidity was better for the St Jude Medical valve in patients aged less than 65 years and was better for the Carpentier-Edwards valve in patients aged more than 65 years. Patients with renal disease, lung disease (in patients more than age 60 years), ejection fraction less than 40%, or coronary disease had a life expectancy of less than 10 years. Conclusions: For first-time, isolated aortic valve replacement, mechanical prostheses should be considered in patients under age 65 years with a life expectancy of at least 10 years. Bioprostheses should be considered in patients over age 65 years or with lung disease (in patients over age 60 years), renal disease, coronary disease, ejection fraction less than 40%, or a life expectancy less than 10 years.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032899079&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032899079&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70368-5

DO - 10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70368-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 10220680

AN - SCOPUS:0032899079

VL - 117

SP - 890

EP - 897

JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 5

ER -