Evolução Tardia das Próteses Biológicas e Mecânicas em Posição Aórtica

BackgroundDespite constant improvement and refinement of the prostheses, the decision between mechanical and biological valves for aortic valve replacement is still controversial.ObjectiveTo compare outcomes of aortic valve replacement with bioprosthesis and mechanical prosthesis.MethodsThis was an observational, historical cohort study with review of medical records. A total of 202 patients who underwent heart valve replacement surgery between 2004 and 2008 were selected, with a mean follow-up of 10 years. The level of significance set at 5%.ResultsMean age of patients was approximately 50 years; most patients were male (70%). Overall mortality- and reoperation-free survival was significantly higher in patients with mechanical prosthesis (HR=0.33; 95%CI=0.13-0.79; p=0.013). No difference was found in late mortality between the two groups. On the other hand, the risk of reoperation was significantly higher in patients with bioprosthesis than mechanical prosthesis (HR=0.062; 95%CI=0.008-0.457; p=0.006). The risk of composite adverse events – stroke, bleeding, endocarditis, thrombosis and paravalvular leak – was similar between the groups (HR=1.20; 95%CI= 0.74-1.93; p=0.44). The risk of bleeding was significantly higher in patients with mechanical prosthesis (HR=3.65; 95%CI= 1.43-9.29; p = 0.0064), although no case of fatal bleeding was reported.ConclusionNo difference in 10-year mortality was found between the groups. The risk of reoperation significantly increases with the use of bioprosthesis, especially for patients younger than 30 years. Patients with mechanical prosthesis are at increased risk of nonfatal bleeding.