Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 16, 2026

Full-root Aortic Valve Replacement by Stentless Aortic Xenografts in Patients with Small Aortic Roots
Published on: May 21, 2017
Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Replacement in the Gray Zone: Bioprosthetic vs. Mechanical Valves in Patients Aged
Alexander Weymann1, Sadeq Ali-Hasan-Al-Saegh1, Sho Takemoto2,3
1Department of Cardiothoracic, Transplantation and Vascular Surgery, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Insights
For patients aged 50-69 undergoing minimally invasive mitral valve replacement (MIMVR), both bioprosthetic and mechanical valves show comparable mid-term survival and reoperation rates. This study supports the safe use of either valve type in this age group.
Area of Science:
- Cardiothoracic Surgery
- Biomaterials Science
- Medical Devices
Background:
- Mitral valve replacement in patients aged 50-69 presents a critical choice between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves.
- Optimal prosthetic valve selection in this age group remains unclear, requiring evaluation of long-term outcomes and risks.
- This study focuses on minimally invasive mitral valve replacement (MIMVR) outcomes, differentiating from sternotomy-based research.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare mid-term outcomes of MIMVR in patients aged 50-69.
- To assess differences in reoperation rates, prosthesis-related morbidity, and overall survival between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves.
- To evaluate the safety and efficacy of both valve types in the context of minimally invasive cardiac surgery.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 172 patients (aged 50-69) undergoing MIMVR via right minithoracotomy (2011-2023).
- Patients were divided into two groups: 95 receiving bioprosthetic valves and 77 receiving mechanical valves.
- Data analyzed included demographics, surgical procedures, complications, and long-term outcomes, adhering to STROBE guidelines.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in 30-day mortality (7.4% vs. 2.6%, p=0.06) or all-cause mortality at 1, 3, and 5 years between valve types.
- Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in long-term survival (p=0.5427) up to a mean follow-up of 7.1 years.
- Bioprosthetic valves were associated with a significantly higher incidence of postoperative arrhythmia (18.9% vs. 6.5%, p=0.01).
Conclusions:
- Mid-term survival, reoperation, and re-hospitalization rates are comparable for bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients aged 50-69 undergoing MIMVR up to 7 years.
- The minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) approach is safe with either valve type in this 'gray-zone' age group.
- While survival outcomes are similar, the higher rate of arrhythmia with bioprosthetic valves warrants consideration.
Abstract:
Background: Mitral valve replacement presents considerable challenges in the field of cardiothoracic surgery, particularly in patients aged 50 to 69, where the decision between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves is critical. Nevertheless, the optimal selection of prosthetic valves for candidates within this age-related gray zone remains inadequately defined, necessitating a thorough evaluation of long-term outcomes and associated risks. Objective: This study aims to assess mid-term outcomes of MIMVR in patients aged 50 to 69, comparing reoperation rates, prosthesis-related morbidity, and overall survival between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves. While many prior studies on valve choice in patients aged 50 to 69 years are derived from sternotomy cohorts, the novelty of our work lies in the exclusive focus on patients undergoing minimally invasive techniques. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines, including 172 patients aged 50-69 years who underwent minimally invasive mitral valve replacement via right minithoracotomy at a high-volume center in Germany between 2011 and 2023. Of the 172 patients, 95 underwent MIMVR using biological prostheses, while 77 received mechanical prostheses. Comprehensive data on demographics, surgical procedures, and postoperative complications, as well as long-term outcomes, were analyzed. Results: With a mean follow-up of 7.1 years, early outcomes revealed no significant differences in 30-day mortality (7.4% for bioprosthetic vs. 2.6% for mechanical; p = 0.06). There was no significant differences in all-cause mortality at 1 year (8.4% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.22), 3-year (9.5% vs. 7.8%; p = 0.69), and 5-year (13.7% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.19), or at the longest follow-up (13.7% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.51). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no significant difference in long-term survival between the groups (p = 0.5427). Postoperative arrhythmia occurred significantly more frequently in the biologic group compared to the mechanical group (18.9% vs. 6.5%; p = 0.01). Conclusions: For patients aged 50-69 undergoing MIMVR using a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve, the mid-term survival and incidence of reoperation and re-hospitalization were comparable up to 7 years. This provides evidence supporting the safe application of the MICS approach with either valve type in this gray-zone age group.
More Related Videos
08:50Technique and Patient Selection Criteria of Right Anterior Mini-Thoracotomy for Minimal Access Aortic Valve Replacement
Published on: March 26, 2018
05:31Transcatheter Pulmonary Valve Replacement from Autologous Pericardium with a Self-Expandable Nitinol Stent in an Adult Sheep Model
Published on: June 8, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Mitral Stenosis III: Medical Management
Mitral Regurgitation III: Medical Management
Mitral Valve Prolapse II: Assessment and Management
Mitral Stenosis I: Introduction
Mitral Valve Prolapse I: Introduction
Mitral Valve Prolapse III: Nursing Management