Valvular & structural heart disease
Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical Valves vs Perimount Bioprostheses in 50- to 69-Year-Old Patients
Main finding · All-cause mortality (estimated cumulative incidence)Result — go to the resultSurvival difference −7.9% 95% CI −11% to −4.6%Authors' conclusion
In patients aged 50 to 69 years who underwent surgical AVR, survival was better in those who received mechanical compared to Perimount bioprosthetic valves.
Study context
- Population
- Patients aged 50 to 69 years undergoing primary surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in Sweden, 2003 to 201874% men
- Participants
- 6,907 patients
- Exposure
- Mechanical valve vs Perimount bioprosthesis for surgical AVR
- Mechanical valven = 3,076
- Perimountn = 3,831reference
- Outcome
- All-cause mortality
- Follow-up
- 15 years
Methodological detailsregistry-based (SWEDEHEART), regression standardization
- Registry-based (SWEDEHEART)
- Regression standardization
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
All-cause mortality (estimated cumulative incidence)
Survival difference
−7.9%
95% CI −11% to −4.6%
By group
Mechanical valvevs Perimount
survival difference −7.9% (95% CI −11% to −4.6%)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
All-cause mortality, ages 50–59 y (subgroup) · 15 years
- Survival difference at 15 years in ages 50 to 59 years
- −15% (95% CI: −8.4% to −21%)
Aortic valve reintervention
- Lower risk of aortic valve reintervention with mechanical valves
Safety
Bleeding
- Higher risk with mechanical valves
Original publication
Aortic Valve Replacement With Mechanical Valves vs Perimount Bioprostheses in 50- to 69-Year-Old Patients. JACC Adv. Published 7 June 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →