Prosthesis Selection for Aortic Valve Replacement With Concomitant Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Abstract

BackgroundThe optimal prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR) with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is controversial. We investigated postoperative outcomes in these patients with a biological prosthesis or mechanical prosthesis. MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis was performed of 2485 patients aged 50 to 69 years who underwent AVR+CABG in Hubei province hospitals from 2002 to 2018. The median follow-up duration was 6.5 years (interquartile range, 0-15.8 years). Propensity score matching for 18 baseline characteristics yielded 346 patient pairs between bioprosthetic and mechanical prosthetic groups. End points were death, stroke, major bleeding event, and reoperation. ResultsNo differences in survival, stroke, or overall reoperation rates were observed between the bioprosthetic and mechanical valve groups. The 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to prosthesis failure/dysfunction was higher in the bioprosthetic group (hazard ratio [HR], 2.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-5.88; P = .011), whereas the 15-year cumulative incidence of reoperation due to coronary artery disease progression/bypass failure was similar between 2 groups (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.37-1.57; P = .459). Mechanical valves were associated with a higher 15-year cumulative incidence of major bleeding events compared with bioprosthetic valves (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.16-3.19; P = .012). ConclusionsLong-term survival, overall reoperation, or stroke incidence was comparable among the 2 groups, while patients with a mechanical valve showed a greater likelihood of major bleeding events. Regarding the limited durability of bioprosthetic valves, a larger sample size monitored for 15 or more years will be necessary to determine the optimal aortic valve prosthesis for patients aged 50 to 69 years undergoing concurrent AVR and CABG.