Comparison between biological and mechanical aortic valve prostheses in middle-aged patients matched through propensity score analysis: long-term results.

OBJECTIVES Choice of prosthesis type in middle-aged patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) is still debated. The aim of this study is to compare long-term follow-up results in middle-aged patients who underwent isolated AVR with a biological or mechanical prosthesis. METHODS A retrospective analysis of a single-centre database was performed to identify patients aged between 55 and 65 years old who underwent isolated AVR with a biological or mechanical prosthesis from January 1996 to January 2008. Sixty patients with a biological aortic valve prosthesis (Group A) were identified and matched through propensity score analysis to other 60 patients with a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis (Group B). RESULTS There was no difference among groups regarding postoperative complications. Follow-up amounted to 117 ± 51 months. In Group A and B patients, 10- and 15-year survival was 77 ± 6 vs 75 ± 6 and 54 ± 13 vs 53 ± 8%, respectively (P = 0.95); 10- and 15-year freedom from structural valve deterioration, 81 ± 7 vs 100 and 64 ± 12 vs 93 ± 5%, respectively (P = 0.003); 10- and 15-year freedom from redo AVR, 87 ± 6 vs 91 ± 5 and 73 ± 11 vs 91 ± 5%, respectively (P = 0.04); 10- and 15-year freedom from endocarditis, 94 ± 3 vs 98 ± 2 and 83 ± 8 vs 98 ± 2%, respectively (P = 0.05); 10- and 15-year freedom from bleeding events, 98 ± 2 vs 96 ± 5 and 88 ± 6 vs 77 ± 10%, respectively (P = 0.98); and 10- and 15-year freedom from cerebrovascular events, 94 ± 3 vs 97 ± 3 and 83 ± 8 vs 97 ± 3%, respectively (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS While survival was not different among groups, patients with a biological prosthesis showed a higher valve-related morbidity at follow-up. Therefore, middle-aged patients should preferably receive a mechanical prosthesis.