Y. Sakamoto, M. Yoshitake, Y. Matsumura, Hitomi Naruse, K. Bando, K. Hashimoto
{"title":"Choice of Aortic Valve Prosthesis in a Rapidly Aging and Long-Living Society.","authors":"Y. Sakamoto, M. Yoshitake, Y. Matsumura, Hitomi Naruse, K. Bando, K. Hashimoto","doi":"10.5761/atcs.oa.16-00104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\nThe aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical (M) and bioprosthetic (B) valves as recommended by the Japanese guidelines.\n\n\nMETHODS\nFrom April 1995 to March 2014, 366 adult patients underwent AVR. Of these, 127 (35%) patients received M and 239 patients (65%) received B valves. A retrospective analysis of the entire and the selected 124 patients aged 60 to 70 years was carried out.\n\n\nRESULTS\nIn patients aged 60 to 70 years, the 15-year survival and freedom from reoperation were 88% ± 7% and 100% for the M group and 34% ± 25% (p <0.001) and 73% ± 14% (p = 0.059) for the B group, respectively. Among propensity score matching of the subgroup, there was no significant difference in survival and freedom from reoperation. The rate of thromboembolism was higher in the M (M: 0.58% vs B: 0.35% patient per year, p <0.001) and the rate of hemorrhage was higher in the M group (M: 0.34% vs B: 0.12% patient per year, p <0.001).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe current strategy of aortic valve choice based on the Japanese guidelines has provided excellent long-term results so far.","PeriodicalId":93877,"journal":{"name":"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery : official journal of the Association of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons of Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5761/atcs.oa.16-00104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11
Abstract
PURPOSE
The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term results of aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical (M) and bioprosthetic (B) valves as recommended by the Japanese guidelines.
METHODS
From April 1995 to March 2014, 366 adult patients underwent AVR. Of these, 127 (35%) patients received M and 239 patients (65%) received B valves. A retrospective analysis of the entire and the selected 124 patients aged 60 to 70 years was carried out.
RESULTS
In patients aged 60 to 70 years, the 15-year survival and freedom from reoperation were 88% ± 7% and 100% for the M group and 34% ± 25% (p <0.001) and 73% ± 14% (p = 0.059) for the B group, respectively. Among propensity score matching of the subgroup, there was no significant difference in survival and freedom from reoperation. The rate of thromboembolism was higher in the M (M: 0.58% vs B: 0.35% patient per year, p <0.001) and the rate of hemorrhage was higher in the M group (M: 0.34% vs B: 0.12% patient per year, p <0.001).
CONCLUSION
The current strategy of aortic valve choice based on the Japanese guidelines has provided excellent long-term results so far.