Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden from 2003 to 2018

Michael Persson, Natalie Glaser, Johan Nilsson, Örjan Friberg, Anders Franco-Cereceda, Ulrik Sartipy

Forskningsoutput: TidskriftsbidragArtikel i vetenskaplig tidskriftPeer review

1 Citering (SciVal)


Importance: The performance of bioprosthetic aortic valves is usually assessed in single valve models or head-to-head comparisons. National databases or registries offer the opportunity to investigate all available valve models in the population and allows for a comparative assessment of their performance. Objective: To analyze the long-term rates of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization associated with commonly used bioprosthetic aortic valves and to identify valve model groups with deviation in clinical performance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based, nationwide cohort study included all adult patients who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass surgery or ascending aortic surgery) in Sweden between January 1, 2003, and December 31, 2018. Patients were identified from the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies) registry. Patients with concomitant valve surgery, previous cardiac surgery, and previous transcatheter valve replacement were excluded. Follow-up was complete for all participants. Data were analyzed from March 9, 2020, to October 12, 2021. Exposures: Primary surgical aortic valve replacement with the Perimount, Mosaic/Hancock, Biocor/Epic, Mitroflow/Crown, Soprano, and Trifecta valve models. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cumulative incidence of reintervention, defined as a subsequent aortic valve operation or transcatheter valve replacement. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Regression standardization and flexible parametric survival models were used to account for intergroup differences. Mean follow-up time was 7.1 years, and maximum follow-up time was 16.0 years. Results: A total of 16983 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [8.5] years; 10 685 men [62.9%]) were included in the analysis. The Perimount valve model group had the lowest and the Mitroflow/Crown valve model group had the highest cumulative incidence of reintervention. The estimated cumulative incidence of reintervention at 10 years was 3.6% (95% CI, 3.1%-4.2%) in the Perimount valve model group and 12.2% (95% CI, 9.8%-15.1%) in the Mitroflow/Crown valve model group. The estimated incidence of reintervention at 10 years was 9.3% (95% CI, 7.3%-11.3%) in the Soprano valve model group. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study showed that the Perimount valve was the most commonly used and had the lowest incidence of reintervention, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization, whereas the Mitroflow/Crown valve had the highest rates. These findings highlight the need for clinical vigilance in patients who receive either a Soprano or Mitroflow/Crown aortic bioprosthesis..

TidskriftJAMA Network Open
Tidigt onlinedatum2022
StatusPublished - 2022

Ämnesklassifikation (UKÄ)

  • Kardiologi


Utforska forskningsämnen för ”Comparison of Long-term Performance of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valves in Sweden from 2003 to 2018”. Tillsammans bildar de ett unikt fingeravtryck.

Citera det här