{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,9,7]],"date-time":"2026-09-07T15:42:08Z","timestamp":1788795728618,"version":"build-2803163510"},"reference-count":28,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2023,8,28]],"date-time":"2023-08-28T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1693180800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Cardiovasc. Med."],"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title>Background\/introduction<\/jats:title><jats:p>Currently, despite continued issues with durability (\n<jats:xref>1<\/jats:xref>), biological prosthetic valves are increasingly chosen over mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in adult patients of all ages, at least in Western countries. For younger patients, this choice means assuming the risks associated with a redo SAVR or valve-in-valve procedure.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose<\/jats:title><jats:p>To assess the use of mechanical vs. biological valve prostheses for SAVR relative to patient's age and implant time in a large population extracted from the French National Database EPICARD.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>Patients in EPICARD undergoing SAVR from 2007 to 2022 were included from 22 participating public or private centers chosen to represent a balanced representation of centre sizes and geographical discrepancies. Patients with associated pathology of the aorta (aneurysm or dissection) and requiring a vascular aortic prosthesis were excluded. Comparisons were made amongst centers, valve choice, implant date range, and patient age.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>We considered 101,070 valvular heart disease patients and included 72,375 SAVR (mean age 71.4\u2009\u00b1\u200912.2 years). We observed a mechanical vs. biological prosthesis ratio (MBPR) of 0.14 for the overall population. Before 50 years old (y-o), MBPR was &amp;gt;1.3 (<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009&amp;lt;\u20090.001) while patients above 60 years-old received principally biological SAVR (<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009&amp;lt;\u20090.0001). Concerning patients between 50 and 60 years-old patients, MPVR was 1.04 (<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009=\u20090.03). Patients 50\u201360 years-old from the first and second study duration quartile (before August 2015) received preferentially mechanical SAVR (<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009&amp;lt;\u20090.001). We observed a shift towards more biological SAVR (<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009&amp;lt;\u20090.001) for patients from the third and fourth quartile to reach a MBPR at 0.43 during the last years of the series. Incidentally, simultaneous mitral valve replacement were more common in case of mechanical SAVR (<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009&amp;lt;\u20090.0001), while associated CABGs were more frequent in case of biological SAVR (<jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\u2009&amp;lt;\u20090.0001).<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title><jats:p>In a large contemporary French patient population, real world practice showed a recent shift towards a lower age-threshold for biological SAVR as compared to what would suggest contemporary guidelines.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3389\/fcvm.2023.1205770","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2023,8,31]],"date-time":"2023-08-31T08:20:41Z","timestamp":1693470041000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":16,"title":["Trends in SAVR with biological vs. mechanical valves in middle-aged patients: results from a French large multi-centric survey"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"10","author":[{"given":"Thierry","family":"Caus","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Yuthiline","family":"Chabry","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Joseph","family":"Nader","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jean Fran\u00e7ois","family":"Fusellier","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jean Louis","family":"De Brux","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"name":"for the EpiCard investigators","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2023,8,28]]},"reference":[{"key":"B1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"71","DOI":"10.1001\/jamacardio.2018.4045","article-title":"Durability data for bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve: a systematic review","volume":"4","author":"Fatima","year":"2019","journal-title":"JAMA Cardiol"},{"key":"B2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1206","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa1300615","article-title":"Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with mechanical heart valves","volume":"369","author":"Eikelboom","year":"2013","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"key":"B3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"31","DOI":"10.1016\/j.pcad.2022.06.001","article-title":"The role of mechanical valves in the aortic position in the era of bioprostheses and TAVR: evidence-based appraisal and focus on the on-X valve","volume":"72","author":"Gerdisch","year":"2022","journal-title":"Prog Cardiovasc Dis"},{"key":"B4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"192","DOI":"10.1111\/jocs.12719","article-title":"Early and late outcomes of aortic valve replacement using bioprosthetic versus mechanical valve in elderly patients: a propensity analysis","volume":"31","author":"Okamoto","year":"2016","journal-title":"J Card Surg"},{"key":"B5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"727","DOI":"10.1093\/ejcts\/ezab389","article-title":"2021 ESC\/EACTS guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease","volume":"60","author":"Vahanian","year":"2021","journal-title":"Eur J Cardiothorac Surg"},{"key":"B6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e183","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jtcvs.2021.04.002","article-title":"2020 ACC\/AHA guideline for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American college of cardiology\/American heart association joint committee on clinical practice guidelines","volume":"162","author":"Otto","year":"2020","journal-title":"J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg"},{"key":"B7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"76","DOI":"10.1016\/j.carrev.2022.10.005","article-title":"Comparison of American and European guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease","volume":"47","author":"Inanc","year":"2022","journal-title":"Cardiovasc Revasc Med"},{"key":"B8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"539","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jtcvs.2017.08.121","article-title":"Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement: revisiting prosthesis choice in patients younger than 50 years old","volume":"155","author":"Schnittman","year":"2018","journal-title":"J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg"},{"key":"B9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"132","DOI":"10.1016\/j.athoracsur.2020.05.180","article-title":"Aortic valve replacement in young and middle-aged adults: current and potential roles of TAVR","volume":"112","author":"Nelson","year":"2021","journal-title":"Ann Thorac Surg"},{"key":"B10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1609","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa1514616","article-title":"Transcatheter or surgical aortic-valve replacement in intermediate-risk patients","volume":"374","author":"Leon","year":"2016","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"key":"B11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"831","DOI":"10.1016\/j.athoracsur.2014.09.030","article-title":"Very long-term outcomes of the carpentier-edwards perimount valve in aortic position","volume":"99","author":"Bourguignon","year":"2015","journal-title":"Ann Thorac Surg"},{"key":"B12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"977","DOI":"10.1093\/ejcts\/ezy204","article-title":"How to treat severe symptomatic valve deterioration of aortic surgical bioprosthesis; trans catheter valve-in-valve implantation or redo valve surgery?","volume":"54","author":"Attias","year":"2018","journal-title":"Eur J Cardiothorac Surg"},{"key":"B13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"394","DOI":"10.1007\/s10439-016-1738-8","article-title":"Transcatheter valve under expansion limits leaflet durability: implications for valve-in-valve procedures","volume":"45","author":"Martin","year":"2017","journal-title":"Ann Biomed Eng"},{"key":"B14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"120","DOI":"10.3389\/fcvm.2019.00120","article-title":"Valve-in-valve challenges: how to avoid coronary obstruction","volume":"6","author":"Bernadi","year":"2019","journal-title":"Front Cardiovas Med"},{"key":"B15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1077279","DOI":"10.3389\/fcvm.2022.1077279","article-title":"Trend and early outcomes in isolated surgical aortic valve replacement in the United Kingdom","volume":"9","author":"Chan","year":"2023","journal-title":"Front Cardiovasc Med"},{"key":"B16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1323","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2014.12679","article-title":"Survival and long term outcomes following bioprosthetic vs mechanical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50\u201369 years","volume":"312","author":"Chiang","year":"2014","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"key":"B17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"355","DOI":"10.1016\/j.cjca.2021.12.008","article-title":"Mechanical vs bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in patients younger than 70 years of age: a hazard ratio meta-analysis","volume":"38","author":"Leviner","year":"2022","journal-title":"Can J Cardiol"},{"key":"B18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2658","DOI":"10.1093\/eurheartj\/ehv580","article-title":"Aortic valve replacement with mechanical vs. Biological prostheses in patients aged 50\u201369 years","volume":"37","author":"Glaser","year":"2016","journal-title":"Eur Heart J"},{"key":"B19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1847","DOI":"10.1056\/NEJMoa1613792","article-title":"Mechanical or biologic prostheses for aortic-valve and mitral-valve replacement","volume":"377","author":"Goldstone","year":"2017","journal-title":"N Engl J Med"},{"key":"B20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"102","DOI":"10.1016\/j.athoracsur.2019.10.027","article-title":"Mechanical versus biologic prostheses for surgical aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70","volume":"110","author":"Kyt\u00f6","year":"2020","journal-title":"Ann Thorac Surg"},{"key":"B21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e13736","DOI":"10.1111\/eci.13736","article-title":"Mechanical aortic valve prostheses offer a better survival benefit in 50-65 year olds: aUTHEARTVISIT study","volume":"52","author":"Traxler","year":"2022","journal-title":"Eur J Clin Invest"},{"key":"B22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1413","DOI":"10.1136\/heartjnl-2020-316718","article-title":"Endocarditis risk with bioprosthetic and mechanical valves: systematic review and meta-analysis","volume":"106","author":"Anantha-Narayanan","year":"2020","journal-title":"Heart"},{"key":"B23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1298","DOI":"10.1016\/j.athoracsur.2015.04.062","article-title":"Contemporary outcomes of repeat aortic valve replacement: a benchmark for transcatheter valve-in-valve procedures","volume":"100","author":"Kaneko","year":"2015","journal-title":"Ann Thorac Surg"},{"key":"B24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1138","DOI":"10.1111\/ggi.12609","article-title":"Cardiac reoperations in octogenarians: do they really benefit?","volume":"16","author":"Deschka","year":"2016","journal-title":"Geriat Gerontol Int"},{"key":"B25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"489","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jacc.2020.06.010","article-title":"Transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacement as an alternative to surgical re-replacement","volume":"76","author":"Deharo","year":"2020","journal-title":"JACC"},{"key":"B26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"122","DOI":"10.1002\/ccd.30219","article-title":"Valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement or re-surgical aortic valve replacement in degenerated bioprostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis of short and midterm results","volume":"100","author":"Bruno","year":"2022","journal-title":"Catheter Cardiovasc Interv"},{"key":"B27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"566","DOI":"10.1016\/j.athoracsur.2022.12.033","article-title":"The society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac surgery database: 2022 update on outcomes and research","volume":"115","author":"Kim","year":"2023","journal-title":"Ann Thorac Surg"},{"key":"B28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ahj.2022.09.003","article-title":"Aortic valve neocuspidization using the ozaki technique: a meta-analysis of reconstructed patient-level data","volume":"255","author":"Mylonas","year":"2023","journal-title":"Am Heart J"}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fcvm.2023.1205770\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2023,8,31]],"date-time":"2023-08-31T08:20:44Z","timestamp":1693470044000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fcvm.2023.1205770\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2023,8,28]]},"references-count":28,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/fcvm.2023.1205770"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fcvm.2023.1205770","relation":{},"ISSN":["2297-055X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2297-055X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2023,8,28]]},"article-number":"1205770"}}