Mechanical aortic valve prostheses offer a survival benefit in 50-65 year olds: AUTHEARTVISIT study

A general consonance principle for closure tests based on p-values

The closure principle is a powerful approach to constructing efficient testing procedures controlling the familywise error rate in the strong sense. For small numbers of hypotheses and the setting of independent elementary p -values we consider closed tests where each intersection hypothesis is tested with a p -value combination test. Examples of such combination tests are the Fisher combination test, the Stouffer test, the Omnibus test, the truncated test, or the Wilson test. Some of these tests, such as the Fisher combination, the Stouffer, or the Omnibus test, are not consonant and rejection of the global null hypothesis does not always lead to rejection of at least one elementary null hypothesis. We develop a general principle to uniformly improve closed tests based on p -value combination tests by modifying the rejection regions such that the new procedure becomes consonant. For the Fisher combination test and the Stouffer test, we show by simulations that this improvement can lead to a substantial increase in power.

Age-Specific Outcomes of Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement: Balancing Reoperation Risk with Anticoagulation Burden

BACKGROUND

The choice of prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains challenging. The risk of anticoagulation complications vs. the risk of aortic valve reintervention should be weighed. This study compared the outcomes of bioprosthetic vs. mechanical AVR in patients older and younger than 50.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted from 2009 to 2019 and involved 292 adult patients who underwent isolated AVR. The patients were divided according to their age (above 50 years or 50 years and younger) and the type of valves used in each age group. The outcomes of bioprosthetic valves (Groups 1a (>50 years) and 1b (≤50 years)) were compared with those of mechanical valves (Groups 2a (>50 years) and 2b (≤50 years)) in each age group.

RESULTS

The groups had nearly equal rates of preexisting comorbidities except for Group 1b, in which the rate of hypertension was greater (32.6% vs. 14.7%; p = 0.025). This group also had higher rates of old stroke (8.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.011) and higher creatinine clearance (127.62 (108.82-150.23) vs. 110.02 (84.87-144.49) mL/min; p = 0.026) than Group 1b. Patients in Group 1a were significantly older than Group 2a (64 (58-71) vs. 58 (54-67) years; p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the NYHA class between the groups. The preoperative ejection fraction and other echocardiographic parameters did not differ significantly between the groups. Re-exploration for bleeding was more common in patients older than 50 years who underwent mechanical valve replacement (p = 0.021). There was no difference in other postoperative complications between the groups. The groups had no differences in survival, stroke, or bleeding rates. Aortic valve reintervention was significantly greater in patients ≤ 50 years old with bioprosthetic valves. There were no differences between groups in the changes in left ventricular mass, ejection fraction, or peak aortic valve pressure during the 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic valve replacement were comparable in patients older than 50 years. Using bioprosthetic valves in patients younger than 50 years was associated with a greater rate of valve reintervention, with no beneficial effect on the risk of bleeding or stroke.

Selection for transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement and mid-term survival: results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study

OBJECTIVES

Limited data are available from randomized trials comparing outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgery in patients with different risks and with follow-up of at least 4 years or longer. In this large, population-based cohort study, long-term mortality and morbidity were investigated in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe aortic stenosis using a surgically implanted bioprosthesis (surgical/biological aortic valve replacement; sB-AVR) or TAVR.

METHODS

Individual data from the Austrian Insurance Funds from 2010 through 2020 were analysed. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, assessed in the overall and propensity score-matched populations. Secondary outcomes included reoperation and cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

From January 2010 through December 2020, a total of 18 882 patients underwent sB-AVR (n = 11 749; 62.2%) or TAVR (n = 7133; 37.8%); median follow-up was 5.8 (95% CI 5.7-5.9) years (maximum 12.3 years). The risk of all-cause mortality was higher with TAVR compared with sB-AVR: hazard ratio 1.552, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.469-1.640, P < 0.001; propensity score-matched hazard ratio 1.510, 1.403-1.625, P < 0.001. Estimated median survival was 8.8 years (95% CI 8.6-9.1) with sB-AVR versus 5 years (4.9-5.2) with TAVR. Estimated 5-year survival probability was 0.664 (0.664-0.686) with sB-AVR versus 0.409 (0.378-0.444) with TAVR overall, and 0.690 (0.674-0.707) and 0.560 (0.540-0.582), respectively, with propensity score matching. Separate subgroup analyses for patients aged 65-75 years and >75 years indicated a significant survival benefit in patients selected for sB-AVR in both groups. Other predictors of mortality were age, sex, previous heart failure, diabetes and chronic kidney disease.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective national population-based study, selection for TAVR was significantly associated with higher all-cause mortality compared with sB-AVR in patients ≥65 years with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis in the >2-year follow-up.

Mechanical Valves: Past, Present, and Future-A Review

The mechanical valve was first invented in the 1950s, and since then, a wide variety of prostheses have been developed. Although mechanical valves have outstanding durability, their use necessitates life-long treatment with anticoagulants, which increases the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. The current guidelines recommend a mechanical prosthetic valve in patients under 50-60 years; however, for patients aged 50-70 years, the data are conflicting and there is not a clear-cut recommendation. In recent decades, progress has been made in several areas. First, the On-X mechanical valve was introduced; this valve has a lower anticoagulant requirement in the aortic position. Second, a potential alternative to vitamin K-antagonist treatment, rivaroxaban, has shown encouraging results in small-scale trials and is currently being tested in a large randomized clinical trial. Lastly, an innovative mechanical valve that eliminates the need for anticoagulant therapy is under development. We attempted to review the current literature on the subject with special emphasis on the role of mechanical valves in the current era and discuss alternatives and future innovations.

Tick bites, IgE to galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose and urticarial or anaphylactic reactions to mammalian meat: The alpha-gal syndrome

The recent recognition of a syndrome of tick-acquired mammalian meat allergy has transformed the previously held view that mammalian meat is an uncommon allergen. The syndrome, mediated by IgE antibodies against the oligosaccharide galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (alpha-gal), can also involve reactions to visceral organs, dairy, gelatin and other products, including medications sourced from non-primate mammals. Thus, fittingly, this allergic disorder is now called the alpha-gal syndrome (AGS). The syndrome is strikingly regional, reflecting the important role of tick bites in sensitization, and is more common in demographic groups at risk of tick exposure. Reactions in AGS are delayed, often by 2-6 h after ingestion of mammalian meat. In addition to classic allergic symptomatology such as urticaria and anaphylaxis, AGS is increasingly recognized as a cause of isolated gastrointestinal morbidity and alpha-gal sensitization has also been linked with cardiovascular disease. The unusual link with tick bites may be explained by the fact that allergic cells and mediators are mobilized to the site of tick bites and play a role in resistance against ticks and tick-borne infections. IgE directed to alpha-gal is likely an incidental consequence of what is otherwise an adaptive immune strategy for host defense against endo- and ectoparasites, including ticks.

Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged 50 to 70 Years

Background

This study compared the outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients aged 50 to 70 years based on the type of prosthetic valve used.

Methods

We compared patients who underwent mechanical AVR to those who underwent bioprosthetic AVR at our institution between January 2000 and March 2019. Competing risk analysis and the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method based on propensity score were employed for comparisons.

Results

A total of 1,580 patients (984 patients with mechanical AVR; 596 patients with bioprosthetic AVR) were enrolled. There was no significant difference in early mortality between the mechanical AVR and bioprosthetic AVR groups (0.9% vs. 1.7%, p=0.177). After IPTW adjustment, the risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group than in the mechanical AVR group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.80; p=0.014). Competing risk analysis revealed lower risks of stroke (sub-distributional hazard ratio [sHR], 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.67; p<0.001) and anticoagulation- related bleeding (sHR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.23-0.53; p<0.001) in the bioprosthetic AVR group. Conversely, the risk of aortic valve (AV) reintervention was higher in the bioprosthetic AVR group (sHR, 6.14; 95% CI, 3.17-11.93; p<0.001).

Conclusion

Among patients aged 50 to 70 years who underwent surgical AVR, those receiving mechanical valves showed better survival than those with bioprosthetic valves. The mechanical AVR group exhibited a higher risk of stroke and anticoagulation-related bleeding, while the bioprosthetic AVR group showed a higher risk of AV reintervention.

Revisiting aortic valve prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years: 10 years results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study

OBJECTIVES

This population-based cohort study investigated mid-term outcome after surgical aortic valve replacement with a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve prosthesis in patients aged <50 years in a European social welfare state.

METHODS

We analysed patient data from the main social insurance carriers in Austria (2010-2020). Subsequent patient-level record linkage with national health data provided patient characteristics and clinical outcome. Survival, reoperation, myocardial infarction, heart failure, embolic stroke or intracerebral haemorrhage, bleeding other than intracerebral haemorrhage and major adverse cardiac events were evaluated as outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 991 patients were analysed. Regarding demographics, no major differences between groups were observed. Multivariable Cox regression revealed no significant difference in overall survival (P = 0.352) with a median follow-up time of 6.2 years. Reoperation-free survival was decreased (hazard ratio = 1.560 [95% CI: 1.076-2.262], P = 0.019) and the risk for reoperation was increased (hazard ratio = 2.770 [95% CI: 1.402-5.472], P = 0.003) in patients who received bioprostheses. Estimated probability of death after reoperation was 0.23 (CL: 0.08-0.35) after 2 years and 0.34 (CL: 0.06-0.53) after 10 years over both groups. Regarding further outcomes, no significant differences between the two groups were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients below 50 years of age receiving aortic valve replacement, implantation of bioprostheses when compared to mechanical heart valve prostheses was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperations and reduced reoperation-free survival. Nevertheless, we could not observe a difference in overall survival. However, long-term follow-up has to evaluate that a significantly lower rate of reoperations may translate in consistently improved long-term survival.

Association of Age and Sex With Use of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in France

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend selecting surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) based on age, comorbidities, and surgical risk. Nevertheless, reports from the United States suggest a rapid expansion of TAVR in young patients.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate the trends in TAVR uptake at a nationwide level in France according to age and sex.

METHODS

Using a nationwide administrative database, we evaluated age- and sex-related trends in TAVR uptake, patient demographics, and in-hospital outcomes between 2015 and 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 107,397 patients (44.0% female) underwent an isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) (59.1% TAVR, 40.9% SAVR). In patients <65 years of age, the proportion of TAVR increased by 63.2% (P < 0.001) from 2015 to 2020 but remained uncommon at 11.1% of all AVR by 2020 (12.4% in females, 10.6% in males) while TAVR was the dominant modality in patients ≥65 years of age. In patients undergoing TAVR, the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) (P = 0.119 for trend) and in-hospital mortality (P = 0.740 for trend) remained unchanged in patients <65 years of age but declined in those ≥65 years of age irrespective of sex (all P < 0.001 for trends). Females were older (P < 0.001), had lower CCI (P < 0.001), were more likely to undergo TAVR (P < 0.001), and experienced higher in-hospital mortality (TAVR, P = 0.015; SAVR, P < 0.001) that persisted despite adjustment for age and CCI.

CONCLUSIONS

In France, the use of TAVR remained uncommon in young patients, predominantly restricted to those at high risk. Important sex differences were observed in patent demographics, selection of AVR modality, and patient outcomes. Additional research evaluating the long-term impact of TAVR use in young patients and prospective data evaluating sex differences in AVR modality selection and outcomes are needed.

Trends in SAVR with biological vs. mechanical valves in middle-aged patients: results from a French large multi-centric survey

Background/introduction

Currently, despite continued issues with durability ( 1), biological prosthetic valves are increasingly chosen over mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in adult patients of all ages, at least in Western countries. For younger patients, this choice means assuming the risks associated with a redo SAVR or valve-in-valve procedure.

Purpose

To assess the use of mechanical vs. biological valve prostheses for SAVR relative to patient's age and implant time in a large population extracted from the French National Database EPICARD.

Methods

Patients in EPICARD undergoing SAVR from 2007 to 2022 were included from 22 participating public or private centers chosen to represent a balanced representation of centre sizes and geographical discrepancies. Patients with associated pathology of the aorta (aneurysm or dissection) and requiring a vascular aortic prosthesis were excluded. Comparisons were made amongst centers, valve choice, implant date range, and patient age.

Results

We considered 101,070 valvular heart disease patients and included 72,375 SAVR (mean age 71.4 ± 12.2 years). We observed a mechanical vs. biological prosthesis ratio (MBPR) of 0.14 for the overall population. Before 50 years old (y-o), MBPR was >1.3 (p < 0.001) while patients above 60 years-old received principally biological SAVR (p < 0.0001). Concerning patients between 50 and 60 years-old patients, MPVR was 1.04 (p = 0.03). Patients 50-60 years-old from the first and second study duration quartile (before August 2015) received preferentially mechanical SAVR (p < 0.001). We observed a shift towards more biological SAVR (p < 0.001) for patients from the third and fourth quartile to reach a MBPR at 0.43 during the last years of the series. Incidentally, simultaneous mitral valve replacement were more common in case of mechanical SAVR (p < 0.0001), while associated CABGs were more frequent in case of biological SAVR (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

In a large contemporary French patient population, real world practice showed a recent shift towards a lower age-threshold for biological SAVR as compared to what would suggest contemporary guidelines.

Mechanical versus Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in Middle-Aged Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Mechanical prostheses and bioprosthetic prostheses have their own advantages and disadvantages. Mechanical ones are recommended for younger patients (<50 years old), and bioprosthetic ones are recommended for older patients (>70 years old). There is still debate regarding which kind of prosthesis is better for middle-aged patients (50 to 70 years old) receiving aortic valve replacement (AVR). To solve this problem, we conducted this meta-analysis. Given that only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) study was included, we conducted a subgroup analysis of RCT and propensity score matching (PSM) retrospective studies to reduce the bias.

METHODS

We systematically searched articles related to clinical outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic prostheses in middle-aged patients receiving AVR in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases. The published date was up to 1 October 2022. Studies were excluded if not only middle-aged patients were included, or if they lacked direct comparisons between mechanical and bioprosthetic prostheses.

RESULTS

In total, 22 studies with 32,298 patients were included in the final analysis. The results show that patients aged between 50 and 70 receiving AVR with mechanical prostheses achieved better long-term survival and fewer reoperations and valve-related events but suffered more with bleeding events. No significant difference could be found in terms of early mortality and long-term cardiac death. The same results could be observed in the subgroup analysis of RCT and PSM retrospective studies.

CONCLUSION

Both mechanical and bioprosthetic prostheses are beneficial to middle-aged patients undertaking AVR procedures. However, mechanical prostheses show better clinical outcomes in long-term survival and comorbidities. Individual recommendation is still necessary.

Valve choice for aortic valve replacement in patients between 50 and 70 years of age

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is a lack of clarity on whether to choose a mechanical or a bioprosthetic valve for aortic valve replacement in patients between the age of 50 and 70.

METHODS

In this review, the existing evidence on the subject has been evaluated.

RESULTS

Decision-making in this age group is heavily dependent on patient choice and patient-related factors. Mechanical valves in this age group are associated with an increased risk of bleeding while reoperations remain an important concern with bioprosthetic valves. Stroke rates have been reported to be largely similar in both valve types.

CONCLUSION

There appears to be conflicting data on survival with some studies suggesting a survival benefit with mechanical valves.