Physical and Mental Recovery after Aortic Valve Surgery in Non-Elderly Patients: Native Valve-Preserving Surgery vs. Prosthetic Valve Replacement

Background: Exercise capacity and patient-reported outcomes are increasingly considered crucial following aortic valve (AV) surgery in non-elderly adults. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the effect of native valve preservation compared with prosthetic valve replacement. Methods: From October 2017 to August 2020, 100 consecutive non-elderly patients undergoing surgery for severe AV disease were included. Exercise capacity and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated upon admission, and 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Results: In total, 72 patients underwent native valve-preserving procedures (AV repair or Ross procedure, NV group), and 28 patients, prosthetic valve replacement (PV group). Native valve preservation was associated with an increased risk of reoperation (weighted hazard ratio: 10.57 (95% CI: 1.24–90.01), p = 0.031). The estimated average treatment effect on six-minute walking distance in NV patients at 1 year was positive, but not significant (35.64 m; 95% CI: −17.03–88.30, adj. p = 0.554). The postoperative physical and mental quality of life was comparable in both groups. Peak oxygen consumption and work rate were better at all assessment time points in NV patients. Marked longitudinal improvements in walking distance (NV, +47 m (adj. p < 0.001); PV, +25 m (adj. p = 0.004)) and physical (NV, +7 points (adj. p = 0.023); PV, +10 points (adj. p = 0.005)) and mental quality of life (NV, +7 points (adj. p < 0.001); PV, +5 points (adj. p = 0.058)) from the preoperative period to the 1-year follow-up were observed. At 1 year, there was a tendency of more NV patients reaching reference values of walking distance. Conclusions: Despite the increased risk of reoperation, physical and mental performance markedly improved after native valve-preserving surgery and was comparable to that after prosthetic aortic valve replacement.