Trends in the use of mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Abstract

Abstract Background The choice between a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve in aortic valve replacement (AVR) is based on life expectancy, bleeding risk and co-morbidities, since bioprosthetic AVR (bAVR) as compared to mechanical AVR (mAVR), are associated with a more rapid structural deterioration. However, refinements in bioprosthetic valves and the introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (potential for valve-in-valve procedures), will most likely influence valve selection in the future. The impact of widespread transcatheter valve replacements, on the decision to use bAVR versus mAVR, in the contemporary era and subsequent outcomes remain to be determined. Purpose The goal of our study was to assess trends in utilization of bAVR and mAVR in the United States while, assessing in-hospital mortality over time. Methods The National Inpatient database (2009–18) was used to study trends in admissions for bAVR and mAVR and in-hospital mortality over time. Survey estimation commands were used to determine weighted national estimates. Results There were 700,896 inpatient visits for AVR with 70.1% (95% CI 69.2%-71.1%) and 29.9% (95% CI 28.9%-30.8%) visits for bAVR and mAVR, respectively. Those undergoing bAVR were significantly older, [bAVR (69.8 years) vs mAVR (62.7 years) p<0.001]. Heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, hypertension, diabetes with complications and renal failure were more common in those undergoing a bAVR. Through the course of the study period, the rates of mAVR decreased across all age groups (p trend <0.001), including patients younger than 50 years (p trend <0.001). Both crude (OR = 1.20 95% CI 1.13–1.27) and adjusted (OR = 1.34 95% CI 1.25–1.44) inpatient mortality was higher amongst mAVR recipients. Conclusions In the contemporary TAVR era, the utilization of mAVR has decreased across all age groups, including those younger than 50 years old. Although mAVR recipients were healthier with significantly less co-morbidities, inpatient mortality was higher after mAVR compared to bAVR. In addition to understanding the causes accounting for the higher mortality after mAVR, future research should focus on developing TAVR friendly bAVR; possibly enhancing our ability to perform percutaneous valve-in-valve procedures in the future. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.