Mechanical valves used for aortic valve replacement (AVR) continue to be associated with bleeding risks because of anticoagulation therapy, while bioprosthetic valves are at risk of structural valve deterioration requiring reoperation. This risk/benefit ratio of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves has led American and European guidelines on valvular heart disease to be consistent in recommending the use of mechanical prostheses in patients younger than 60 years of age. Despite these recommendations, the use of bioprosthetic valves has significantly increased over the last decades in all age groups. A systematic review of manuscripts applying propensity-matching or multivariable analysis to compare the usage of mechanical vs. bioprosthetic valves found either similar outcomes between the two types of valves or favourable outcomes with mechanical prostheses, particularly in younger patients. The risk/benefit ratio and choice of valves will be impacted by developments in valve designs, anticoagulation therapy, reducing the required international normalized ratio, and transcatheter and minimally invasive procedures. However, there is currently no evidence to support lowering the age threshold for implanting a bioprosthesis. Physicians in the Heart Team and patients should be cautious in pursuing more bioprosthetic valve use until its benefit is clearly proven in middle-aged patients.

IMPORTANCE Whether intervention should be performed in patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) remains debated.OBJECTIVE To meta-analyze the natural history of asymptomatic severe AS and examine the association of early intervention with survival.

OBJECTIVES Patients with bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) comprise a substantial portion of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Our goal was to quantify the prevalence of BAV in the current SAVR ± coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) population, assess differences in cardiovascular risk profiles and assess differences in long-term survival in patients with BAV compared to patients with tricuspid aortic valve (TAV). METHODS Patients who underwent SAVR with or without concomitant CABG and who had a surgical report denoting the relevant valvular anatomy were eligible and included. Prevalence, predictors and outcomes for patients with BAV were analysed and compared to those patients with TAV. Matched patients with BAV and TAV were compared using a propensity score matching strategy and an age matching strategy. RESULTS A total of 3723 patients, 3145 of whom (mean age 66.6 ± 11.4 years; 37.4% women) had an operative report describing their aortic valvular morphology, underwent SAVR ± CABG between 1987 and 2016. The overall prevalence of patients with BAV was 19.3% (607). Patients with BAV were younger than patients with TAV (60.6 ± 12.1 vs 68.0 ± 10.7, respectively). In the age-matched cohort, patients with BAV were less likely to have comorbidities, among others diabetes (P = 0.001), hypertension (P < 0.001) and hypercholesterolaemia (P = 0.003), compared to patients with TAV. Twenty-year survival following the index procedure was higher in patients with BAV (14.8%) compared to those with TAV (12.9%) in the age-matched cohort (P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS Substantial differences in the cardiovascular risk profile exist in patients with BAV and TAV. Long-term survival after SAVR in patients with BAV is satisfactory.

Objective. Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve implantation (ViV-TAVI) has emerged as a useful alternative intervention to redo-surgical aortic valve replacement (Redo-SVAR) for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthesis valve. However, there is no robust evidence about the long-term outcome of both treatments. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the long-term outcomes of Redo-SVAR versus ViV-TAVI by reconstructing the time-to-event data. Methods. The search strategy consisted of a comprehensive review of relevant studies published between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2022 in three electronic databases, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE. Relevant studies were retrieved for the analysis. The primary endpoint was the long-term mortality for all death. The comparisons were made by the Cox regression model and by landmark analysis and a fully parametric model. A random-effect method was applied to perform the meta-analysis. Results. Twelve studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. A total of 3547 patients were included. Redo-SAVR group included 1783 patients, and ViV-TAVI included 1764 subjects. Redo-SAVR showed a higher incidence of all-cause mortality within 30-days [Hazard ratio (HR) 2.12; 95% CI = 1.49–3.03; p < 0.0001)], whereas no difference was observed between 30 days and 1 year (HR = 1.03; 95% CI = 0.78–1.33; p = 0.92). From one year, Redo-SAVR showed a longer benefit (HR = 0.52; 95% CI = 0.40–0.67; p < 0.0001). These results were confirmed for cardiovascular death (HR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.29–3.22; p = 0.001 within one month from intervention; HR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.18–0.71; p = 0.003 at 4-years follow-up). Conclusions. Although the long-term outcomes seem similar between Redo-SAVR and ViV-TAVI at a five-year follow-up, ViV-TAVI shows significative lower mortality within 30 days. This advantage disappeared between 30 days and 1 year and reversed in favor of redo-SAVR 1 year after the intervention.

Background Sex does have an effect on disease perception and outcomes after cardiac surgery. Objectives Quantify the differences in cardiovascular risk profiles within an age-matched cohort and assess the long-term survival differences in males and females who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery. Methods All-comers patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass surgery were included. Characteristics, clinical features, and survival up to 30 years were compared between female and male patients. Propensity- and age-matching using propensity scores were used to compare both groups. Results During the total study period between 1987 and 2017, there were 3462 patients (mean age 66.8 (SD:11.1) years, 37.1% female) who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass surgery at our institution. In general, female patients were older than male patients (69.1 (SD:10.3) versus 65.5 (SD:11.3), respectively). In the age-matched cohort, female patients were less likely to have multiple comorbidities and undergo concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery. Twenty-year survival following the index procedure was higher in age-matched female patients (27.1%) compared to male patients (24.4%) in the overall cohort), p = 0.018. Conclusions Substantial sex differences in cardiovascular risk profile exist. However, when surgical aortic valve replacement with or without coronary artery bypass surgery is performed, extended long-term mortality is comparable between males and females. More research regarding sex-dimorphic mechanisms of aortic stenosis and coronary atherosclerosis would promote more awareness in terms of sex-specific risk factors after cardiac surgery and contribute to more guided personalized surgery in the future.