Determining Which Prosthetic to Use During Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Younger than 70 Years: A Systematic Review of the Literature

  • Philip Borger University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, VA
  • Eric J Charles Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
  • Eric D Smith Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • J Hunter Mehaffey Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
  • Robert B Hawkins Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
  • Irving L Kron Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
  • Gorav Ailawadi Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
  • Nicholas Teman Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA


Background: The choice of bioprosthesis versus mechanical prosthesis in patients aged less than 70 years undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) remains controversial, with guidelines disparate in their recommendations. The objective of this study was to explore outcomes after AVR for various age ranges based on type
of prosthesis.

Methods: A systematic review was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Instructions for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines by using Medline (PubMed), Cochrane, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus databases. Rates of long-term survival (primary outcome), reoperation, major bleeding, thromboembolism, stroke, structural valve deterioration, and endocarditis were compared between subjects receiving biologic and mechanical prostheses. Findings were grouped into patients aged <60 years, aged ≤65 years, and finally
aged <70 years.

Results: A total of 19 studies met inclusion criteria. Seven evaluated patients aged <60 years, 4 of which found mechanical prosthesis patients to have higher long-term survival, whereas the remaining studies found no difference. Eight additional studies included patients aged 65 years or younger, and 9 studies included patients aged <70 years. The former found no difference in survival between prosthesis groups, whereas the latter favored mechanical prostheses in 3 studies. Bleeding, thromboembolism, and stroke were more prevalent in patients with a mechanical prosthesis, whereas reoperation was more common in those receiving a bioprosthesis.

Conclusions: Published literature does not preclude the use of bioprostheses for AVR in younger patients. As new valves are developed, the use of bioprosthetic aortic valves in younger patients will likely continue to expand. Clinical trials are needed to provide surgeons with more
accurate guidelines.


Akins CW, Buckley MJ, Daggett WM, et al. 1998. Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 65:1545-51; discussion 1551-2.

Alex S, Hiebert B, Arora R, Menkis A, Shah P. 2018. Survival and long-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement in patients aged 55 to 65 years. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 66:313-21.

Badhwar V, Ofenloch JC, Rovin JD, van Gelder HM, Jacobs JP. 2012. Noninferiority of closely monitored mechanical valves to bioprostheses overshadowed by early mortality benefit in younger patients. Ann Thorac Surg 93:748-53.

Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, et al. 2017. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J 38:2739-91.

Brennan JM, Edwards FH, Zhao Y, et al. 2012. Early anticoagulation of bioprosthetic aortic valves in older patients: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery National Database. J Am Coll Cardiol 60:971-7.

Brown ML, Schaff HV, Lahr BD, et al. 2008. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50-70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 135:878-84; discussion 884.

Carrier M, Pellerin M, Perrault LP, et al. 2001. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical and biologic prosthesis in middle-aged patients. Ann Thorac Surg 71(5 suppl):S253-6.

Chiang YP, Chikwe J, Moskowitz AJ, Itagaki S, Adams DH, Egorova NN. 2014. Survival and long-term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 69 years. JAMA 312:1323-9.

Colli A, Verhoye JP, Heijman R, et al. 2008. Antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: ACTION Registry survey results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 33:531-6.

Diemert P, Seiffert M, Frerker C, et al. 2014. Valve-in-valve implantation of a novel and small self-expandable transcatheter heart valve in degenerated small surgical bioprostheses: the Hamburg experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 84:486-93.

Dvir D, Barbanti M, Tan J, Webb JG. 2014. Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation for patients with degenerative surgical bioprosthetic valves. Curr Probl Cardiol 39:7-27.

Dvir D, Webb J, Brecker S, et al. 2012. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for degenerative bioprosthetic surgical valves: results from the global valve-in-valve registry. Circulation 126:2335-44.

Elmaraezy A, Ismail A, Abushouk AI, et al. 2017. Efficacy and safety of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in aortic stenosis patients at low to moderate surgical risk: a comprehensive meta-analysis. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 17:234.

Fraccaro C, Testa L, Schiavo A, et al. 2018. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients younger than 75 years: guidelines-based patients selection and clinical outcome. Int J Cardiol 272:273-8.

Glaser N, Jackson V, Holtzmann MJ, Franco-Cereceda A, Sartipy U. 2016. Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. biological prostheses in patients aged 50-69 years. Eur Heart J 37:2658-67.

Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, et al. 2017. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med 377:1847-57.

Head SJ, Çelik M, Kappetein AP. 2017. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement. Eur Heart J 38:2183-91.

Isaacs AJ, Shuhaiber J, Salemi A, Isom OW, Sedrakyan A. 2015. National trends in utilization and in-hospital outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 149:1262-1269.e3.

Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, et al. 2003. Re-operation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure – risk assessment. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 24:873-8.

Jones JM, O’Kane H, Gladstone DJ, et al. 2001. Repeat heart valve surgery: risk factors for operative mortality. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 122:913-8.

Kaneko T, Vassileva CM, Englum B, et al. 2015. Contemporary outcomes of repeat aortic valve replacement: a benchmark for transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures. Ann Thorac Surg 100:1298-304; discussion 1304.

Kirsch M, Nakashima K, Kubota S, Houël R, Hillion ML, Loisance D. 2004. The risk of reoperative heart valve procedures in octogenarian patients. J Heart Valve Dis 13:991-6; discussion 996.

Korteland NM, Top D, Borsboom GJ, Roos-Hesselink JW, Bogers AJ, Takkenberg JJ. 2016. Quality of life and prosthetic aortic valve selection in non-elderly adult patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 22:723-8.

Kulik A, Bédard P, Lam BK, et al. 2006. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 30:485-91.

Maganti M, Rao V, Armstrong S, Feindel CM, Scully HE, David TE. 2009. Redo valvular surgery in elderly patients. Ann Thorac Surg 87:521-5.

Makkar RR, Fontana G, Jilaihawi H, et al. 2015. Possible subclinical leaflet thrombosis in bioprosthetic aortic valves. N Engl J Med 373:2015-24.

McClure RS, McGurk S, Cevasco M, et al. 2014. Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: a propensity-matched analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 148:1931-9.

Mérie C, Køber L, Skov Olsen P, et al. 2012. Association of warfarin therapy duration after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement with risk of mortality, thromboembolic complications, and bleeding. JAMA 308:2118-25.

Minakata K, Tanaka S, Tamura N, et al. 2017. Comparison of the long-term outcomes of mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic valves: a propensity score analysis. Circ J 81:1198-1206.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetziaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097.

Myken P, Larsson P, Larsson S, Berggren H, Caidahl K. 1995. Similar quality of life after heart valve replacement with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves. J Heart Valve Dis 4:339-45.

Nishida T, Sonoda H, Oishi Y, et al. 2014. Long-term results of aortic valve replacement with mechanical prosthesis or Carpentier-Edwards Perimount bioprosthesis in Japanese patients according to age. Circ J 78:2688-95.

Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2017. 2017 AHA/ACC focused update of the 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Taste Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 70:252-89.

Phan K, Zhao DF, Wang N, Huo YR, Di Eusanio M, Yan TD. 2016. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation versus reoperative conventional aortic valve replacement: a systematic review. J Thorac Dis 8:E83-93.

Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. 2006. Prosthesis-patient mismatch: definition, clinical impact, and prevention. Heart 92:1022-9.

Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. 2016. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur J Heart Fail 18:891-975.

Potter DD, Sundt TM 3rd, Zehr KJ, et al. 2005. Operative risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:94-103.

Prasongsukarn K, Jamieson WR, Germann E, Chan F, Lichtenstein SV. 2007. Aortic and mitral prosthetic valve replacement in age groups 61-65 & 66-70 years. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 15:127-33.

Roumieh M, Ius F, Tudorache I, et al. 2015. Comparison between biological and mechanical aortic valve prostheses in middle-aged patients matched through propensity score analysis: long-term results. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 48:129-36.

Ruel M, Chan V, Bédard P, et al. 2007. Very long-term survival implications of heart valve replacement with tissue versus mechanical prostheses in adults <60 years of age. Circulation 116(11 suppl):I294-300.

Ruel M, Kulik A, Lam BK, et al. 2005. Long-term outcomes of valve replacement with modern prostheses in young adults. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 27:425-33.

Ruel M, Kulik A, Rubens FD, et al. 2004. Late Incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 25:364-70.

Sakamoto Y, Yoshitake M, Matsumura Y, Naruse H, Bando K, Hashimoto K. 2016. Choice of aortic valve prosthesis in a rapidly aging and long-living society. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 22:333-9.

Stassano P, Di Tommaso L, Monaco M, et al. 2009. Aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized evaluation of mechanical versus biological valves in patients ages 55 to 70 years. J Am Coll Cardiol 54: 1862-8.

Suri RM, Schaff HV. 2013. Selection of aortic valve prostheses: contemporary reappraisal of mechanical versus biologic valve substitutes. Circulation 17:1372-80.

Svennsson LG, Adams DH, Bonow RO, et al. 2013. Aortic valve and ascending aorta guidelines for management and quality measures: executive summary. Ann Thorac Surg 95:1491-505.

Wang Y, Chen S, Shi J, Li G, Dong N. 2016. Mid- to longer-term outcome comparison of the Medtronic Hancock II and bi-leaflet mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age: a propensity-matched analysis. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg 22:280-6.

Webb JG, Dvir D. 2013. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure: the valve-in-valve procedure. Circulation 127:2542-50.

Webb JG, Wood DA, Ye J, et al. 2010. Transcatheter valve-in-valve implantation for failed bioprosthetic heart valves. Circulation 121:1848-57.

Weber A, Noureddine H, Englberger L, et al. 2012. Ten-year comparison of pericardial tissue valves versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 60 years of age. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 144:1075-83.

Ye J, Cheung A, Yamashita M, et al. 2015. Transcatheter aortic and mitral valve-in-valve implantation for failed surgical bioprosthetic valves: an 8-year single-center experience. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 8:1735-44.

Zhao DF, Seco M, Wu JJ, et al. 2016. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in middle-aged adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 102:315-27.

How to Cite
Borger, P., Charles, E., Smith, E., Mehaffey, J., Hawkins, R., Kron, I., Ailawadi, G., & Teman, N. (1). Determining Which Prosthetic to Use During Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients Aged Younger than 70 Years: A Systematic Review of the Literature. The Heart Surgery Forum, 22(2), E070-E081.