Progressive LV Dysfunction and Adverse Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprosthetic Valves in Young Patients.

Abstract

Background: Bioprosthetic valve dysfunction and reoperations/reinterventions are common after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with bioprosthetic valves, leading to cycles of left ventricular (LV) pressure overload and unloading. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative changes in LV structure and function and their relationship to clinical outcomes in young patients who underwent AVR with bioprosthetic valves (Bio_AVR group) versus mechanical prosthetic valves (Mech_AVR group).

Methods: Retrospective study of adults with congenital heart disease who underwent AVR at Mayo Clinic (2003-2023). The Bio_AVR group was matched 1:2 to the Mech_AVR group. LV indices (LV mass index, relative wall thickness, LV global longitudinal strain, averaged e', and averaged E/e') and clinical indices (NT-proBNP [N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide] and New York Heart Association class) were assessed preoperatively, and at 1, 5, and 10 years post-AVR.

Results: We studied 151 and 302 patients in the Bio_AVR and Mech_AVR groups, respectively (age 38±16 years, 58% males). Both groups had similar LV and clinical indices at baseline and 1 year post-AVR. However, the Bio_AVR group had higher LV mass index, relative wall thickness, and averaged E/e', and lower averaged e' and LV global longitudinal strain at 5 and 10 years post-AVR. Of 51 patients from the Bio_AVR group who underwent a second AVR, there was less robust improvement in LV indices and clinical indices after the second AVR compared with the first AVR.

Conclusions: AVR with a bioprosthetic valve was associated with progressive LV hypertrophy and dysfunction, and worsening clinical status compared with mechanical prosthetic valves. This provides further evidence against the use of bioprosthetic AVR in young patients.