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

ObjectiveTo compare explantation for structural valve deterioration in nonelderly patients after aortic valve replacement with stented bovine pericardial and cryopreserved allograft valves.MethodsFrom 1981 to 1985, 478 patients received pericardial prostheses during premarket approval; from 1987 to 2000, 744 patients received cryopreserved allografts. Mean age of patients receiving allografts was 49 ± 12 years, and that of those receiving pericardial prostheses was 65 ± 11 years; pericardial valves were used in 138 patients younger than age 60. Mean follow-up was 15 ± 5.1 years for pericardial valves (4674 patient-years of follow-up) and 5.6 ± 3.1 years for allografts (3892 patient years of follow-up). Multivariable hazard function methodology, age-group stratification, and propensity matching were used to compare age-specific explantation for structural valve deterioration.ResultsNinety-five pericardial valves and 46 allografts were explanted, and structural valve deterioration was the mechanism of failure in 74% and 59%, respectively. The risk of structural valve deterioration increased with younger age at implantation for both allografts (P = .07) and pericardial valves (P < .0001), with a similar magnitude of effect in patients age 50 years or younger (P = .5), 50 to 60 years (P = .7), and greater than 60 years (P = .9) and in propensity-matched pairs (P = .2). Thus, pericardial valves were as durable as allografts at all adult ages.ConclusionsStructural valve deterioration is the most frequent cause of valve-related reoperation after both pericardial and allograft aortic valve replacement and is similarly age dependent, suggesting that pericardial valves may be appropriate for nonelderly as well as older persons.