Are allografts the biologic valve of choice for aortic valve replacement in nonelderly patients? Comparison of explantation for structural valve deterioration of allograft and pericardial prostheses.

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To compare explantation for structural valve deterioration in nonelderly patients after aortic valve replacement with stented bovine pericardial and cryopreserved allograft valves. METHODS: From 1981 to 1985, 478 patients received pericardial prostheses during premarket approval; from 1987 to 2000, 744 patients received cryopreserved allografts. Mean age of patients receiving allografts was 49 +/- 12 years, and that of those receiving pericardial prostheses was 65 +/- 11 years; pericardial valves were used in 138 patients younger than age 60. Mean follow-up was 15 +/- 5.1 years for pericardial valves (4674 patient-years of follow-up) and 5.6 +/- 3.1 years for allografts (3892 patient years of follow-up). Multivariable hazard function methodology, age-group stratification, and propensity matching were used to compare age-specific explantation for structural valve deterioration. RESULTS: Ninety-five pericardial valves and 46 allografts were explanted, and structural valve deterioration was themechanism of failure in 74% and 59%, respectively. The risk of structural valve deterioration increased with younger age at implantation for both allografts (P = .07) and pericardial valves (P < .0001), with a similar magnitude of effect in patients age 50 years or younger (P = .5), 50 to 60 years (P = .7), and greater than 60 years (P = .9) and in propensity-matched pairs (P = .2). Thus, pericardial valves were as durable as allografts at all adult ages. CONCLUSIONS: Structural valve deterioration is the most frequent cause of valve-related reoperation after both pericardial and allograft aortic valve replacement and is similarly age dependent, suggesting that pericardial valves may be appropriate for nonelderly as well as older persons.