Biological versus mechanical SAVR patient's age threshold: PARTNER II study influenced real world practice in a large French cohort

• Published in: European heart journal Vol. 44; no. Supplement_2
• Main Authors: Chabry, Y, Baufreton, C, Bouchot, O, Camilleri, L, Collart, F, Demaria, R, Frieh, J P, Kindo, M, Labrousse, L, Leprince, P, Marcheix, B, Roussel, J C, Verhoye, J P, Vincentelli, A, Caus, T
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford University Press (OUP) 09.11.2023
• Subjects: Life Sciences
• ISSN: 0195-668X; 1522-9645
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.1675

Abstract Background/introduction Published in 2016, PARTNER II study has shown TAVR to be non inferior to SAVR in intermediate risk patients. This result might influence the type of SAVR chosen in patients for whom a redo surgery would surely be a procedure at intermediate risk, based on estimated age at time for redo and taking into account ViV TAVI as a game changer for treating a degenerated biological prosthesis. Purpose To assess the choice of type of valve according to age in aortic position through the French National Database EPICARD before and after the publication of Parter II study. Methods We extracted from EPICARD all valvular patients operated on from 2007 to 2022 in 24 participating public or private centers chosen to represent a balanced representation of center sizes and geographical discrepancies. Patients with associated pathology of the aorta (aneurysm or dissection) and requiring a vascular aortic prosthesis were excluded. Results From the obtained representative study population of 101,070 valvular patients, we studied 72,375 SAVR (mean age 71.4 +/- 12.2). We observed a mechanical versus biological prosthesis ratio (MBPR) of 0.14 for the overall aortic SAVR population. Before 50 y-o, MBPR was >1.3 (p<0.001) while patients above 60 y-o received principally biological SAVR (p<0.0001). Concerning patients between 50-60 y-o patients, MBPR was 1.04 (p=0.03). Patients 50-60 y-o from the first and second quartile (before August 2015) received preferentially mechanical SAVR (p<0.001). We observed a shift towards more biological SAVR (p<0.001) for patients from the third and fourth quartile to reach a MBPR at 0.43 during the last years of the series. Incidentally, the choice of type of SAVR was influenced by associated procedures. Simultaneous mitral valve replacement were more common in case of mechanical SAVR (p<0.0001), while associated CABGs were more frequent in case of biological SAVR (p<0.0001). Conclusion In a large contemporary French patient population, real world practice showed that publication of the PARTNER II study was followed by a shift towards a lower threshold for biological SAVR as compared to ESC Guidelines.