Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 1, 2025
Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement from Autologous Pericardium with a Self-Expandable Nitinol Stent in an Adult Sheep Model
Published on: June 8, 2022
Mitral valve replacement in children: balancing durability and risk with mechanical and bioprosthetic valves
Joeri Van Puyvelde1,2, Bart Meyns1,2, Filip Rega1,2
1Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Objectives:
To investigate if there is still a place for bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in children by comparing the prosthetic durability and transplant-free survival after bioprosthetic and mechanical mitral valve replacement.
Methods:
We reviewed all mitral valve replacements in children between 1981 and 2020. Bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement cases were individually matched to mechanical mitral valve replacement cases. The incidence rate of a 2nd replacement was calculated using the cumulative incidence function that considered death or transplantation as a competing risk.
Results:
The median age at implantation was 3.6 years (interquartile range 0.8-7.9) for the bioprosthetic valve cohort (n = 28) and 3 years (interquartile range 1.3-7.8) for the mechanical valve cohort (n = 28). Seven years after bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement, the cumulative incidence of death or transplantation was 17.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.3-34.1] and the cumulative incidence of a 2nd replacement was 63.6% (95% CI 39.9-80.1). Seven years after mechanical mitral valve replacement, the cumulative incidence of death or transplantation was 28.6% (95% CI 13.3-46) and the cumulative incidence of a 2nd replacement was 10.7% (95% CI 2.6-25.5). Fifteen years after mechanical mitral valve replacement, the cumulative incidence of death or transplantation was 33.6% (95% CI 16.2-52.1) and the cumulative incidence of a 2nd replacement was 41.1% (95% CI 18.4-62.7). The cumulative incidence curves for bioprosthetic and mechanical mitral valve replacement were statistically different for a 2nd valve replacement (P < 0.001) but not for death or transplantation (P = 0.33).
Conclusions:
There is no difference in transplant-free survival after bioprosthetic and mechanical mitral valve replacement in children. The lifespan of bioprosthetic mitral valves remains limited in children because of structural valve failure due to calcification. After 15 years, 40% of mechanical valves were replaced, primarily because of patient-prosthesis mismatch related to somatic growth.
