Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Surgical Treatment of Valvular Heart Disease: Overview of Mechanical and Tissue Prostheses, Advantages, Disadvantages, and Implications for Clinical Use

  • Valvular Heart Disease (J Dal-Bianco, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Cardiovascular Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Valvular heart disease (VHD) affects a large number of patients annually. From a surgical standpoint, there are two primary options for valve replacement: mechanical or bioprosthetic. While there are clear advantages and disadvantages to either option, and recent literature does challenge some of the prior dictums of valve choice, a handful of absolutes remain true. Mechanical valves provide superior durability and freedom from re-operation when compared to their bioprosthetic counterparts, at the expense of bleeding or thrombotic complications associated with the need for lifelong oral anticoagulation. Unless a clear contraindication to oral anticoagulation exists, we recommend implanting mechanical valves for patients less than 60 years old and those who are older than 65 but maintained on anticoagulation for reasons other than their valvular disease. Bioprosthetic valves should be placed in patients who are greater than 65 years old or those patients who have a postoperative life expectancy of less than 10 years. Valve choice in patients between the ages of 60 to 70 is not dictated by guidelines and is less clear, with patient preference playing a larger role than their age range.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Jones EC, Devereux RB, Roman MJ, et al. Prevalence and correlates of mitral regurgitation in a population-based sample (the Strong Heart Study). Am J Cardiol. 2017;87(3):298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(00)01362-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Maganti K, Rigolin VH, Sarano ME, Bonow RO. Valvular heart disease: diagnosis and management. Mayo Clin Proc. 2010;85(5):483–500. https://doi.org/10.4065/mcp.2009.0706.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Pibarot P, Dumesnil JG. Prosthetic heart valves. Circulation. 2009;119(7):1034–48. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/7/1034.abstract

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Piazza N, Bleiziffer S, Brockmann G, et al. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation for failing surgical aortic bioprosthetic valve. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4(7):721–32. http://www.interventions.onlinejacc.org/content/4/7/721.abstract

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Iung B, Baron G, Butchart EG, et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur Heart J. 2003;24(13):1231–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-668X(03)00201-X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nkomo VT, Gardin JM, Skelton TN, Gottdiener JS, Scott CG, Enriquez-Sarano M. Burden of valvular heart diseases: a population-based study. Lancet. 2017;368(9540):1005–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69208-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Le Tourneau T, de Groote P, Millaire A, et al. Effect of mitral valve surgery on exercise capacity, ventricular ejection fraction and neurohormonal activation in patients with severe mitral regurgitation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(7):2263–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)01015-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van Geldorp MW, Heuvelman HJ, Kappetein AP, Busschbach JJ, Takkenberg JJ, Bogers AJ. The effect of aortic valve replacement on quality of life in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis. Neth Hear J. 2013;21(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-012-0362-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC, Edmunds LH, Fedderly BJ, Freed MD, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. Executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease). J Heart Valve Dis. 1998;7(6):672–707.

  10. Gott VL, Alejo DE, Cameron DE. Mechanical heart valves: 50 years of evolution. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;76(6):S2230–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2003.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tillquist MN, Maddox TM. Cardiac crossroads: deciding between mechanical or bioprosthetic heart valve replacement. Patient Prefer Adher. 2011;5:91–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S16420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hammermeister K, Sethi GK, Henderson WG, Grover FL, Oprian C, Rahimtoola SH. Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000;36(4):1152–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(00)00834-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dangas GD, Weitz JI, Giustino G, Makkar R, Mehran R. Prosthetic heart valve thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(24):2670–89. http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/68/24/2670.abstract

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tirilomis T. Acute thrombosis of mechanical bi-leaflet aortic valve prosthesis. J Cardiovasc Dis Res. 2012;3(3):228–30. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-3583.98899.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Butchart EG, Gohlke-Bärwolf C, Antunes MJ, et al. Recommendations for the management of patients after heart valve surgery. Eur Heart J. 2005;26(22):2463–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehi426.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nishimura RA, Otto CM, Bonow RO, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(22):e57–e185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2014.02.536.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Panduranga P, Al-Mukhaini M, Al-Muslahi M, Haque MA, Shehab A. Management dilemmas in patients with mechanical heart valves and warfarin-induced major bleeding. World J Cardiol. 2012;4(3):54–9. https://doi.org/10.4330/wjc.v4.i3.54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve in adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(22):2413–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.10.085.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Puskas J, Gerdisch M, Nichols D, et al. Reduced anticoagulation after mechanical aortic valve replacement: Interim results from the prospective pandomized on-X valve anticoagulation clinical trial randomized Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(4) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.01.004.

  20. Harris C, Croce B, Cao C. Tissue and mechanical heart valves. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;4(4):399. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2225-319X.2015.07.01.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ali A, Halstead JC, Cafferty F, et al. Are stentless valves superior to modern stented valves? A prospective randomized trial. Circulation. 2006;114(SUPPL. 1) https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.000950.

  22. Webb JG, Dvir D. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement for bioprosthetic aortic valve failure. Circulation. 2013;127(25):2542–50. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/127/25/2542.abstract

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hoffmann G, Lutter G, Cremer J. Durability of bioprosthetic cardiac valves. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2008;105(8):143–8. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2008.0143.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruel M, Kulik A, Lam BK, et al. Long-term outcomes of valve replacement with modern prostheses in young adults☆. Eur J Cardio-Thoracic Surg. 2005;27(3):425–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Carpentier A. Hemodynamic factors affecting the fate of valvular bioprosthesis. Circulation. 2010;121(19):2083–4. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/19/2083.abstract

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Foroutan F, Guyatt GH, O’Brien K, et al. Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies. BMJ. 2016;354 http://www.bmj.com/content/354/bmj.i5065.abstract

  27. Sénage T, Le Tourneau T, Foucher Y, et al. Early structural valve deterioration of Mitroflow aortic bioprosthesis: mode, incidence, and impact on outcome in a large cohort of patients. Circulation. 2014;130(23):2012–20. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/130/23/2012.abstract

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kaneko T, Aranki S, Javed Q, et al. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in patients <65 years old. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147(1):117–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.08.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bach DS. Choice of prosthetic heart valves:update for the next generation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42(10):1717–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2003.06.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. •• McClure RS, Narayanasamy N, Wiegerinck E, et al. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;89(5):1410–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.01.046. Another study showing early failure of ‘wrap-around’ type bioprosthetic valve in adults.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Yankah CA, Pasic M, Musci M, et al. Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136(3):688–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.05.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Saleeb SF, Newburger JW, Geva T, et al. Accelerated degeneration of a bovine pericardial bioprosthetic aortic valve in children and young adults. Circulation. 2014;130(1):51–60. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/130/1/51.abstract

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Mariscalco G, Mariani S, Bichi S, et al. St. Jude Medical Trifecta aortic valve: results from a prospective regional multicentre registry. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;10:169. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-015-0379-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kalra A, Rehman H, Ramchandani M, et al. Early Trifecta valve failure: report of a cluster of cases from a tertiary care referral center. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.05.044.

  35. Kon ND, Cordell AR, Adair SM, Dobbins JE, Kitzman DW. Aortic root replacement with the freestyle stentless porcine aortic root bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;67(6):1609–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(99)00370-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Smedira NG, Blackstone EH, Roselli EE, Laffey CC, Cosgrove DM. Are allografts the biologic valve of choice for aortic valve replacement in nonelderly patients? Comparison of explantation for structural valve deterioration of allograft and pericardial prostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;131(3):558–564.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2005.09.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Nowicki ER, Pettersson GB, Smedira NG, Roselli EE, Blackstone EH, Lytle BW. Aortic allograft valve reoperation: surgical challenges and patient risks. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;86(3):761–768.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.01.102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Goldstone AB, Chiu P, Baiocchi M, et al. Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(19):1847–57. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1613792.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ghoneim A, Bouhout I, Demers P, et al. Management of small aortic annulus in the era of sutureless valves: a comparative study among different biological options. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152(4):1019–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2016.06.058.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Seiler C. Management and follow up of prosthetic heart valves. Heart. 2004;90(7):818–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/hrt.2003.025049.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Thornhill MH, Dayer M, Lockhart PB, Prendergast B. Antibiotic prophylaxis of infective endocarditis. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2017;19(2):9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11908-017-0564-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit St, Boston, MA, 02114, USA

    Amy G. Fiedler MD & George Tolis Jr. MD

Authors
  1. Amy G. Fiedler MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George Tolis Jr. MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Tolis Jr. MD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Amy G. Fiedler and George Tolis, Jr. each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Valvular Heart Disease

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fiedler, A.G., Tolis, G. Surgical Treatment of Valvular Heart Disease: Overview of Mechanical and Tissue Prostheses, Advantages, Disadvantages, and Implications for Clinical Use. Curr Treat Options Cardio Med 20, 7 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-018-0601-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11936-018-0601-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation