Selection of prosthetic aortic valve and root replacement in patients younger than age 30 years

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Feb;157(2):714-725. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.06.102. Epub 2018 Nov 14.

Abstract

Objective: Long-term outcomes of prosthetic aortic valve/root replacement in patients aged 30 years or younger are not well understood. We report our single institutional experience in this young cohort.

Methods: From 1998 to 2016, 99 patients (age range, 16-30 years) underwent aortic valve replacement (n = 57), aortic valve replacement and supracoronary ascending aorta replacement (n = 6), or aortic root replacement (n = 36). A prospectively maintained aortic valve database was retrospectively reviewed to complete longitudinal functional and clinical data. Total follow-up was 493 patient years.

Results: Surgical indications included primary stenosis/insufficiency (52% [n = 51]), Marfan syndrome (10% [n = 10]), and endocarditis (33.3% [n = 33]). Fifty-eight patients (59%) underwent mechanical valve replacement, with 41 patients (41%) receiving a biologic/bioprosthetic valve. Twenty-five patients underwent aortic valve reoperation after index procedure with following indications: prosthesis-patient mismatch 1.0% (n = 1), prosthetic valve degeneration/dysfunction 10% (n = 10), connective tissue 2% (n = 2), and endocarditis 12% (n = 12). Mortality (30-day/in-hospital) and stroke rate were 3.0% (n = 3) and 1% (n = 1), respectively. One-, 5-, and 10-year actuarial freedom from aortic valve reoperation by valve type was 89.1%, 84.6%, and 69.4% for the Mechanical Valve group and 89.6%, 70.9%, and 57.6% for the Biologic/Bioprosthetic Valve group, respectively (log rank P = .279). Replacement valve size ≤21 mm was a significant risk factor for reoperation, and was associated with progression of mean aortic valve transvalvular gradients over follow-up. Valve type had no effect.

Conclusions: The choice of mechanical versus biologic/bioprosthetic valve does not affect freedom from reoperation or survival rates in this young cohort during mid- to long-term follow-up. Smaller aortic valve replacement size (≤21 mm) is a significant risk factor for reoperation and progression of mean aortic valve gradients.

Keywords: aortic valve; prosthetic valve.

Publication types

  • Webcast

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Adult
  • Aorta / diagnostic imaging
  • Aorta / physiopathology
  • Aorta / surgery*
  • Aortic Valve / diagnostic imaging
  • Aortic Valve / physiopathology
  • Aortic Valve / surgery*
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation / adverse effects
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation / instrumentation*
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation / mortality
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis*
  • Databases, Factual
  • Female
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / adverse effects
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / instrumentation*
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation / mortality
  • Heart Valve Prosthesis*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Prosthesis Design
  • Recovery of Function
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Risk Factors
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Young Adult