[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 479
Citations 0
Comment & Response
February 3, 2015

Age Cutoffs for Bioprosthetic vs Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement—Reply

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, New York
  • 2Department of Health Evidence and Policy, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
JAMA. 2015;313(5):523-524. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.17231

In Reply Dr Head and colleagues outline 3 misconceptions on which a preference for mechanical valves in younger patients has historically been based: (1) the mortality risk attributed to bioprosthetic valve degeneration; (2) the effect of reoperation; and (3) the durability of mechanical valves.

In support of the association between mechanical valves and survival benefit in younger patients, Head and colleagues cite a retrospective comparison1 in which confounding variables, including cancer, liver disease, and coagulopathy, were not controlled. The difficulty of adjusting for key confounders is inherent in observational studies and is why the survival benefit attributed to mechanical valves may in fact result from the established practice of implanting bioprosthetic valves in patients with shorter life expectancy.

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview