The Perimount Valve in the Aortic Position: Twenty-Year Experience With Patients Under 60 Years Old

Background With improved durability of contemporary bioprostheses, surgeons are now recommending biologic valves in younger patients. However, long-term outcomes of patients younger than 60 years old undergoing biologic aortic valve implantation are not well known. Methods From November 1991 to March 2011, 144 patients less than 60 years old underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA). Mean follow-up was 10 ± 4 years. Outcomes were reported according to published guidelines. Results Seventy-five percent of patients were male, with a mean age of 51 ± 9 years. Actuarial survival rates including early deaths were 89% ± 3%, 79% ± 4%, and 57% ± 6% after 5, 10, and 15 years of follow-up, respectively. Survival of patients was comparatively lower than a gender- and age-matched general population at all time points. The freedom from major adverse cardiac events (myocardial infarction, heart failure, hemorrhage, thromboembolic event, and endocarditis) was 89% ± 3%, 87% ± 3%, and 75% ± 6% at 5, 10, and 15 years after surgery. The freedom rate from prosthetic valve dysfunction was 97% ± 2%, 84% ± 4%, and 57% ± 6% at 5, 10, and 15 years after surgery. Patients with a diagnosis of structural valve deterioration (29 of 37, 78%) underwent reoperation 11 ± 5 years after the initial valve replacement with no perioperative mortality. Conclusions In patients younger than 60 years undergoing AVR, the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount bioprosthesis provided satisfactory clinical outcomes. However, late survival was inferior to an age- and gender-matched population. Structural valve deterioration and the need for reintervention were common late after implantation, but reoperation for prosthetic valve dysfunction was associated with a very low risk of mortality.