Back

Association between surgical aortic valve replacement and long-term outcomes in 50 to 65-year-olds: Results of the AUTHEARTVISIT study

Florian, A.; Auer, J.; Reichardt, B.; Krotka, P.; Wagenlechner, C.; Wendt, R.; Mildner, M.; Mascherbauer, J.; Ankersmit, J.; Zimpfer, D.; Graf, A.

2024-12-24 surgery
10.1101/2024.12.19.24319314 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectivesDuring the last years, age recommendations for the use of biological prostheses rather than mechanical prostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR) have been lowered considerably. We evaluated survival rates, major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and reoperation risks after surgical (sM-AVR) and biological (sB-AVR) AVR, to provide data for the optimal prosthesis choice for middle aged patients between 50 and 65 years. MethodsWe performed a population-based cohort study using Austrian Health System data from 2010-2020. Patients undergoing isolated sAVR (n=3761) were categorized into sM-AVR (n=1018) and sB-AVR (n=2743) groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance covariates. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included MACEs, reoperation, stroke, bleeding, and survival post-reoperation. Outcomes were assessed using Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses. ResultsPatients undergoing sM-AVR had significantly lower all-cause mortality compared to sB-AVR (HR=1.352, p=0.003). sB-AVR was associated with higher risks of MACEs (HR=1.182, p=0.03) and reoperation (HR=2.338, p=0.002). Stroke and bleeding rates were comparable. All results were sustained after PSM. ConclusionThe findings highlight increased mortality, MACEs and reoperation risks associated with sB-AVR compared to sM-AVR. We observed superior long-term outcomes after sM-AVR, suggesting the need to reevaluate the expanding use of sB-AVR in younger patients. Graphical Abstract O_FIG O_LINKSMALLFIG WIDTH=200 HEIGHT=120 SRC="FIGDIR/small/24319314v1_ufig1.gif" ALT="Figure 1"> View larger version (23K): org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1935405org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@1713b06org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@da2253org.highwire.dtl.DTLVardef@10385f1_HPS_FORMAT_FIGEXP M_FIG C_FIG

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.