SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “HEART VALVE PROSTHESIS”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 559 records · Page 31Linked to original sources

PubMed2004

Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves.

OBJECTIVES: Reoperation is a relatively common event in patients with prosthetic heart valves, but its actual occurrence can vary widely from one patient to another. With a focus on bioprosthetic valves, this study examines risk factors for reoperation in a large patient cohort. METHODS: Patients (N=3233) who underwent a total of 3633 operations for aortic (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) between 1970 and 2002 were prospectively followed (total 21,179 patient-years; mean 6.6+/-5.0 years; maximum 32.4 years). The incidence of prosthetic valve reoperation and the impact of patient- and valve-related variables were determined with actual and actuarial methods. RESULTS: Fifteen-year actual freedom from all-cause reoperation was 94.1% for aortic mechanical valves, 61.4% for aortic bioprosthetic valves, 94.8% for mitral mechanical valves, and 63.3% for mitral bioprosthetic valves. In both aortic and mitral positions, current bioprosthesis models had significantly better durability than discontinued bioprostheses (15-year reoperation odds-ratio 0.11+/-0.04; P<0.01 for aortic, and 0.42+/-0.14; P=0.009 for mitral). Current bioprostheses were significantly more durable in the aortic position than in the mitral position (14.3+/-6.8% more freedom from 15-year reoperation; (P=0.018)). Older age was protective, but smoking was an independent risk factor for reoperation after bioprosthetic AVR and MVR (hazard ratio for smoking 2.58 and 1.78, respectively). In patients with aortic bioprostheses, persistent left ventricular hypertrophy at follow-up and smaller prosthesis size predicted an increased incidence of reoperation, while this was not observed in patients with mitral bioprostheses. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses indicate that current bioprostheses have significantly better durability than discontinued bioprostheses, reveal a detrimental impact for smoking after AVR and MVR, and indicate an increased reoperation risk in patients with a small aortic bioprosthesis or with persistent left ventricular hypertrophy after AVR.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Fatal embolization of ball portion of Starr-Edwards aortic valve prosthesis.

We report an unusual case of a Starr-Edwards aortic valve malfunction with fatal dislodgment and embolization of its ball portion to the distal abdominal aorta, just above the bifurcation, leading to sudden death. This case is unusual in that it is, to date, the longest time elapsed between valve placement and ball dislodgment.

Aorta, Abdominal↗

PubMed1998

Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: a 21-year experience.

BACKGROUND: The Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis experience to 21 years has been evaluated to determine the influence of structural valve deterioration by valve position in various age groupings. METHODS: From 1975 to 1988, 1,181 patients had the prosthesis implanted in 1,198 procedures. The mean age of the population was 57.9+/-12.5 years (range, 21 to 85 years). Aortic valve replacement was performed in 564 patients (47.8%); mitral valve replacement, 478 (40.5%); and multiple valve replacement, 132 (11.2%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 337 patients (28.5%), and 140 (11.9%) had previous operations. RESULTS: The early mortality was 8.1% (97), only 0.4% (5) of which were valve-related. The total follow-up was 10,405 years (mean, 8.8+/-5.2 years). The late mortality was 5.7%/patient-year (591), with the valve-related component 1.6%/patient-year (168) with a 13% reoperative mortality (56). The linearized rate of structural valve deterioration was 3.8%/patient-year (395), with overall complications of 7.1%/patient-year (737). The overall survival at 20 years was 17.2%+/-3.1% (p < 0.05; aortic valve replacement greater than mitral valve replacement or multiple valve replacement). The freedom from structural valve deterioration was, at 18 years, 25.8%+/-2.8% overall, AVR 40.6%+/-4.2%, and MVR 8.5%+/-3.4% (p < 0.05, aortic valve replacement greater than mitral valve replacement or multiple valve replacement). The freedom from structural valve deterioration for aortic valve replacement was, at 15 years, for patients older than 70 years, 82.9%+/-9.1%; 61 to 70 years, 73.2%+/-4.7%; 51 to 60 years, 58.8%+/-5.4%; 41 to 50 years, 41.7%+/-8.2%; and 21 to 40 years, 25.5%+/-7.8%. The freedom from structural valve deterioration for mitral valve replacement was, at 15 years, for patients older than 70 years, 89.8%+/-7.6%; 61 to 70 years, 22.8%+/-6.3%; 51 to 60 years, 26.3% +/- 5.7%; 41 to 50 years, 11.7%+/-5.6%; and 21 to 40 years, 7.0%+/-4.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The prosthesis is recommended for aortic valve replacement for patients older than 70 years and for patients 61 to 70 years (when extended longevity is not anticipated) and for mitral valve replacement for patients older than 70 years.

Adult↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The stentless porcine valve.

Recognition of the long-term results of homografts has brought about a renewed interest in stentless valves. This has been matched by the introduction of several glutaraldehyde preserved porcine stentless prostheses. The early experience indicates that these valves are technically somewhat simpler to insert than homografts and are associated with satisfactory early and immediate-term results. In particular, they appear to offer an earlier and more complete resolution of left ventricular hypertrophy. Correct insertion of a stentless porcine valve needs meticulous attention to detail and awareness of the precise anatomical features of the aortic root, which is a complex structure. Although the myocardial ischemic and cardiopulmonary bypass times are longer for the more complex insertion of this prosthesis, our studies indicate that this has no serious disadvantage to the patient and is more than matched by an improved hemodynamic performance associated with more stable left ventricular function. The theoretical advantages of a stentless valve substitute in the aortic position seem clear. Further detailed prospective studies are needed to report on the long-term performance of this valve.

Animals↗

PubMed1998

Hemodynamics after aortic valve replacement with St. Jude Medical valve for patients with small aortic annulus and severe left ventricular hypertrophy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS OF THE STUDY: Cardiac function after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with small aortic annulus and increased left ventricular (LV) wall thickness has not been clearly defined. The study aim was to examine a potential relationship between postoperative catheterization data (or radionuclide LV cardiac function) and the size of the aortic valve ring of a small St. Jude Medical prosthesis. METHODS: Sixty-one patients with small prosthesis (< or = 23 mm) were allocated to three groups based on the diameter of the native aortic annulus or aortic valve ring of the prosthesis (group I, 19 mm; group II, 21 mm; group III, 23 mm). Pre- and postoperative cardiac function was evaluated from catheterization data and radioisotope (RI) ventriculography. RESULTS: There were no significant inter-group differences in preoperative pulmonary artery pressures (PAPs), total pulmonary resistance (TPR), LV ejection fraction, peak ejection rate (PER) and peak filling rate (PFR). The mean postoperative PAPs and TPR of group I were significantly elevated in ICU compared with those of groups II or III (PAP: group I, 20+/-5; group II, 17+/-4; group III, 14+/-4 mmHg; p <0.01. TPR: group I, 505+/-268; group II, 316+/-134; group III, 276+/-125 dynes.s.cm-5; p <0.05). Postoperative PAPs and TPR of group I at one month after surgery were decreased, and no significant difference was found between the three groups. Cardiac function by RI study showed that postoperative PER and PFR improved in all three groups compared with the preoperative values. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative reversibility of PAPs and improvement of PER and PFR in patients with a prosthesis of 19 mm or 21 mm showed that a small-sized aortic SJM valve had hemodynamic advantages. However, careful postoperative management in the ICU must be applied to patients with a small aortic annulus of 19 mm and severe concentric hypertrophy.

Aged↗

PubMed2006

Perforation of the Valsalva sinus after implantation of Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis.

We report on structural valve deterioration in patients with the Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, MN), including spontaneous perforation of the Valsalva sinus. These occurred in four prosthesis in 3 patients using the modified subcoronary method or full root technique. One patient died of ruptured pseudoaneurysm and the others survived reoperation well. Careful follow-up is required after Freestyle bioprosthesis implantation.

Aortic Rupture↗

PubMed2004

Eight-year results after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to describe the hemodynamic and clinical outcomes for the Freestyle aortic root bioprosthesis (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) in a large multicenter cohort prospectively followed for 8 years. METHODS: A total of 700 patients (651 [93%] >60 years of age) at 8 centers in North America were followed prospectively after aortic valve replacement with the Freestyle stentless bioprosthesis; the implant technique was subcoronary in 500, total root in 162, and root inclusion in 38. Follow-up was 3395 patient-years (4.9 +/- 2.3 years per patient). Clinical and echocardiographic follow-up was prospectively obtained at yearly intervals. RESULTS: For the subcoronary, total root, and root inclusion groups, actuarial freedom from valve-related death was 96.8% (SE 3.0%), 92.3% (SE 7.7%), and 90.9% (SE 11.2%), respectively, and freedom from structural deterioration was 98.6% (SE 2.0%), 100.0% (SE 0.0%), and 100.0% (SE 0.0%), respectively. Hemodynamics remained excellent at 6 years. Freedom from moderate or more aortic regurgitation was 86.0% (SE 5.1%), 98.7% (SE 3.9%), and 97.3% (SE 6.6%), respectively. Gradients were slightly lower (P =.0009), and the effective orifice area (P =.02) and freedom from aortic regurgitation were slightly higher (P =.03) with total root than subcoronary implantation. CONCLUSIONS: The Freestyle stentless aortic root bioprosthesis is a versatile option for aortic valve replacement. Measures of clinical outcomes and prosthesis durability remain excellent in multicenter follow-up through 8 years in a population predominantly older than 60 years at the time of the operation.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Patient-prosthesis mismatch does not affect survival following aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) has been reported to increase perioperative mortality and reduce postoperative survival in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). We analysed the effect of PPM at values predicting severe mismatch on survival following AVR in our unit. METHODS: Prospectively collected data on 1481 consecutive patients who had undergone AVR with or without coronary artery revascularisation between 1997 and 2005 were analysed. Projected in vitro valve effective orifice area (EOA) and geometric prosthesis internal orifice area (GOA) were evaluated and values were indexed to body surface area (cm(2)m(-2)). PPM was defined as EOAi<0.6 and/or GOAi<1.1. Long-term survival data were obtained from the National Institute of Statistics. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred and eighteen patients were identified. 67/1418 (4.7%) patients had GOAi<1.1; 122/1418 (8.6%) had EOAi<0.6 and 38 (2.6%) patients exhibited both forms of mismatch. One thousand two hundred and sixty-seven patients (89%) demonstrated no mismatch (reference group). There were 75 in-hospital deaths (overall mortality 5.3%) with no significant difference between the mismatch and the reference groups. Survival data were available for up to 8 years (median 36 months, IQR 6-60 months). There were 160 late deaths (13/143 PPM group vs 147/1198 reference group). The 5-year survival estimate was similar for both groups (83% PPM group; 81% reference group; p=0.47). Cox-hazard analysis identified advanced age as the only predictor of reduced survival (age>80, RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.38-4.586, p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Severe patient-prosthesis mismatch was predicted in 4-10% of patients undergoing AVR but this did not affect in-hospital mortality or mid-term survival.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

[Percutaneous aortic valve replacement].

Surgical aortic valve replacement has been the gold standard for treatment of symptomatic aortic valve disease. However, the success of this approach depends on various patient- and situation-specific risk predictors; thus, the perioperative mortality can reach up to 50%. Percutaneous valve replacement might offer a new less invasive alternative. Since 2002, a balloon-expandable valve prosthesis is under evaluation in symptomatic high-risk patients with aortic valve stenosis. After modifications of both the implantation technique as well as the design of the prosthesis, procedural success rates of > 75% and adverse event rates of < 20% at 30-day follow-up have been reported. A new alternative to this approach is the self-expanding valve prosthesis. The recently reported First-in-Man Study demonstrated the feasibility of this technique. However, the strict inclusion criteria for both procedures limit the number of potential candidates. New devices are currently under development, which will allow for a broader use of percutaneous valve replacement in the near future.

Angiography↗

PubMed2006

Late entrapment of ball and cage valve in mitral position.

A 32-year-old female underwent mitral valve replacement with total chordal preservation (Miki's technique) using 26 mm (1M) Starr-Edward prosthesis (SEP) in 1988. The patient was in NYHA class-I until 2001. She progressed to NYHA class-III with paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnoea. Transthoracic echocardiogram showed increased prosthetic valve gradient, and cardiac catheterization confirmed the findings. Intraoperatively, the poppet movement in the cage was found to be restricted due to the preserved subvalvular apparatus entrapping the poppet inside the prosthetic valve cage.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Mitral valve replacement in children: mortality, morbidity, and haemodynamic status up to medium term follow up.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the outcome of mechanical mitral valve replacement in children after up to 11 years of follow up. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of case records. Operative survivors underwent echocardiographic studies to define current haemodynamic status and prosthetic valve function. SETTING: Tertiary referral centre. PATIENTS: All 54 children who underwent mitral valve replacement between January 1987 and December 1997. RESULTS: 30 day mortality was 20.3% and was associated with small valve size and supra-annular position. The actuarial freedom from the following events at five years (70% confidence interval (CI)) was: death, including 30 day mortality and transplantation, 68% (70% CI 62% to 75%); bleeding, 89% (70% CI 84% to 94%); non-structural valve dysfunction and reoperation, 92% (70% CI 87% to 97%). The incidence of endocarditis and thromboembolism was low and there was no structural valve failure. Event-free survival was 52% (70% CI 45% to 60%). Low weight, young age, and small valve size increased the chance of death or reoperation. On echocardiography, left ventricular dilatation and wall motion abnormalities were often observed. A high mean gradient over the prosthesis was associated with small valve size but not with length of follow up. CONCLUSIONS: With the use of mechanical prostheses for mitral valve replacement in children, the problem of structural valve failure is no longer an issue. However, the procedure is still associated with a high complication rate, both at surgery and during follow up, and should therefore be reserved for patients in whom valve repair is not technically feasible.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2000

Postoperative exercise tolerance after aortic valve replacement by small-size prosthesis: functional consequence of small-size aortic prosthesis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine whether a small-size valve prosthesis contributes to exercise intolerance, as assessed by VO2 measurement during an exhaustive cycle ergometer exercise. BACKGROUND: The determinants of exercise capacity after mechanical aortic replacement are not well known. The selection of small valve sizes has, however, been described as an independent predictor of exercise intolerance as assessed by exercise duration. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) is a good index of exercise tolerance. METHODS: Fourteen patients were eligible, with a mean age of 62 +/- 6 years. Before surgery, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 73 +/- 8%. Two valve types with small diameter (19 to 21 mm) were used: Medtronic Hall and St Jude Medical. A healthy sedentary control group (n = 14) paired for age, weight and size was constituted. After one year of follow-up, cardiorespiratory tests were performed. In addition, the gradients through the prostheses were determined by continuous pulse Doppler at rest and immediately after the cardiorespiratory test. RESULTS The exercise tolerance was not significantly different between the control group and patient group: VO2 peak (21.7 vs. 20.4 ml/kg/min; p = 0.42), workloads (115 vs. 93 W; p = 0.13) and ventilatory parameters were similar. The mean and peak gradients at rest and during exercise were not correlated with VO2max. CONCLUSIONS: Valve replacement by small aortic prosthesis does not seem to be a factor of exercise intolerance as assessed by VO2max in patients without LVEF dysfunction before surgery.

Aged↗

PubMed2004

Patient-prosthesis mismatch in aortic valve replacement: really tolerable?

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have demonstrated favorable results despite patient-prosthesis mismatch after aortic valve replacement with the use of third generation prostheses. Our aim was to determine whether this mismatch is always tolerable. METHODS: A clinical-echocardiographic study has been performed in 339 consecutive patients who underwent aortic valve replacement because of aortic stenosis. In-hospital outcome and left ventricular mass index regression (1st month-1st year) were analyzed in the presence or absence of mismatch (indexed effective orifice area < or =0.85cm(2)/m(2)). The influence of high degrees of preoperative left ventricular mass on in-hospital mortality has also been evaluated. Left ventricular mass index was considered increased if the calculated value was over the superior quartile of the frequency distribution of all the values observed in both sexes. RESULTS: Mismatch was found in 38% of the patients. In the absence of mismatch, the absolute mass regression was proportional to the preoperative left ventricular mass. This regression was higher in patients with increased left ventricular mass indexed (vs not increased): -38.0+/-7.8 vs -8.8+/-4.7g/m(2), p<0.01 (1st month) and -67.7+/-16.9vs -23.5+/-6.7g/m(2), p<0.05 (1st year). Mass regression was impaired in the presence of mismatch, particularly, in patients with previously increased left ventricular mass: -8.2+/-11.6 vs -5.6+/-6.3g/m(2) (p=0.83) and -24.6+/-12.6 vs -11.7+/-10.5g/m(2) (p=0.54). This worse regression was reflected on a 100% incidence of residual hypertrophy at follow-up (1st month-1st year). In the presence of mismatch, increased ventricular mass was associated with higher mortality: 14.7% vs 2.1% (p<0.01). In the absence of mismatch, ventricular mass was not associated with mortality: 4.1 vs 2.5% (p=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe ventricular hypertrophy it may be important to elude patient-prosthesis mismatch to avoid a significant increase in mortality and improve ventricular mass regression. Mismatch may be tolerable in those patients with lesser degree of hypertrophy.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

[Valve replacement with the Omnicarbon valve prosthesis. A 10-year follow-up].

OBJECTIVE: We retrospectively examined the outcomes of 264 patients who underwent consecutive Omnicarbon valve implantation surgery between April 1985 and May 1995. METHODS: At the time of surgery, patients who received this mechanical prosthesis averaged 57+/-11 years of age. Omnicarbon valves were placed in the aortic position in 36% of the cases, in the mitral position in 44%, and in both positions in 20%. Follow-up was carefully performed, with most patients undergoing physical examination at our clinic. While taking the case history, cardiac physicians specifically questioned the patient about valve-related complications. RESULTS: Accumulated total patient-years is 1291, with a mean follow-up time of 5.4 years. Survival at 10 years is 79.4+/-3.9%, including all causes of death and early mortality. Complications recorded during the 11-year study include: thromboembolism (0.1%), hemorrhage (0.4%), endocarditis (0.2%), and nonstructural failure (1.2%). No hemolytic anemia, valve thrombosis, or structural failure was detected during this long-term experience. Functional capability of these patients was subjectively assessed by the NYHA classification system. With follow-up time averaging over 5 years, 97% of our Omnicarbon valve patients are in NYHA I or II. CONCLUSION: The Omnicarbon mechanical prosthesis provides a good clinical performance for up to 10 years in both the aortic and mitral positions. Results indicated a low incidence of thromboembolism and of hemorrhagic complications.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Stentless and stented aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: Factors affecting midterm clinical and hemodynamical outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the midterm results of aortic valve replacement (AVR) with stented and stentless bioprosthesis in an elderly population by analyzing the factors affecting survival and hemodynamical performance. METHODS: In a retrospective study, 145 patients with a Toronto stentless prosthesis are compared with 110 patients with a stented Carpentier-Edwards valve. The 5- to 10-year clinical outcome, transprosthetic gradients, and early and late left ventricular mass (LVM) regression are analyzed in view of specific prosthesis- and patient-related factors. RESULTS: Actuarial survival at 5 years is 82% after stentless AVR versus 68% after stented AVR (p < 0.001) in elderly patients. However, there was no difference in survival at 8 years, being 55.9% and 59.5%, respectively. Univariate analysis revealed that advanced age at the time of operation, NYHA class IV, use of a stented xenograft, presence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (PPM) (IEOA < or = 0.85 cm2/m2), and severe preoperative left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy (LVMI > 180 g/m2) affected survival adversely. But multivariate analysis determined only age, NYHA class IV and excessive LV hypertrophy as independent predictors of late mortality. Stented and stentless xenografts were equally effective in terms of transprosthetic gradients and LVMI regression. The use of a stentless valve significantly reduced the occurrence of PPM (18% vs 41%, p < 0.01). Early LVMI regression at 1 year was optimized by the avoidance of PPM, indicated by a higher absolute (43.7+/-28.3 g/m2 vs 58.6+/-33.8 g/m2, p = 0.003) and relative (25.0+/-12.7% vs 31.4+/-14.9%, p=0.004) mass regression. However, late LV remodeling was predominantly affected by systemic hypertension and severe preoperative LV hypertrophy, resulting in the incomplete LVMI resolution in 61.3% and 66.7% of these patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: In elderly patients, aortic valve replacement appears to be equally effective with a stentless or stented bioprosthesis. Midterm clinical outcome is mainly determined by patient-related factors such as age, advanced NYHA class, and severity of preoperative LV hypertrophy. Regarding post-AVR left ventricular remodeling, patient-prosthesis mismatch influences the early phase, whereas arterial hypertension affects the late regression more. However, the left ventricular remodeling is continuously compromised by the preoperative presence of excessive hypertrophy, despite the efficacy of the aortic valve replacement.

Aged↗

PubMed2000

Hemodynamic and clinical impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch in the aortic valve position and its prevention.

Prosthesis-patient mismatch is present when the effective orifice area of the inserted prosthetic valve is less than that of a normal human valve. This is a frequent problem in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, and its main hemodynamic consequence is the generation of high transvalvular gradients through normally functioning prosthetic valves. The purposes of this report are to present an update on the concept of aortic prosthesis-patient mismatch and to review the present knowledge with regard to its impact on hemodynamic status, functional capacity, morbidity and mortality. Also, we propose a simple approach for the prevention and clinical management of this phenomenon because it can be largely avoided if certain simple factors are taken into consideration before the operation.

Aortic Valve Stenosis↗

PubMed1998

Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in aortic or mitral position: a 12-year experience.

BACKGROUND: The first generation of pericardial valves was withdrawn from the market for a high rate of premature failure. With an original design, Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valves promised improved results. METHODS: Seven hundred eighty-seven patients who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement and 182 patients who underwent isolated mitral valve replacement between July 1984 and December 1995 with Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprostheses in our institution were followed up. The patients' mean age was 68.3 (aortic valve replacement, AVR) and 63.9 (mitral valve replacement, MVR) years. All but five AVR patients were followed up for an average of 4.7 years after operation, with a total follow-up of 3,624 patient-years. All patients with MVR were followed up for an average of 5.3 years after operation, with a total follow-up of 969 patient-years. RESULTS: After 12 years, actuarial survival rate is 53% for AVR and 54% for MVR. Freedom from valve-related complications for aortic versus mitral valve replacement is, respectively, 68% and 55%, freedom from valve-related death is 84% and 85%, freedom from thromboembolism 87% and 94%, and freedom from endocarditis 97% and 94%. The behavior of the aortic valve is better than that of the mitral valve: freedom from reoperation is 92% and 76%, respectively; freedom from valve failure is 94% and 78%. Age is an important factor, especially in the mitral position: freedom from valve failure is 52% in patients younger than 60 years and 100% in patients older than 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: With a low rate of valve-related events at 12 years and a low rate of structural deterioration, this prosthesis is a reliable choice for AVR and in patients over 60 years for MVR. A more durable mitral bioprosthesis is needed for patients younger than 60 years.

Actuarial Analysis↗

PubMed2003

Re-operation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure - risk assessment.

OBJECTIVE: The predominant complication of bioprostheses is structural valve deterioration and the consequences of re-operation. Prosthesis choice for aortic valve replacement surgery (bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses), is influenced by valve-related complications (mortality and morbidity) of the prosthesis type chosen. The purpose of the study is to determine the mortality and risk assessment of that mortality for aortic bioprosthetic failure. METHODS: From 1975 to 1999, 3356 patients received a heterograft bioprosthesis in 3530 operations. The procedures were performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass (CAB) in 1388 procedures and without in 2142 procedures. Three hundred twenty-two re-operations for structural valve deterioration were performed in 312 patients with 22 fatalities (6.8%). Of the 322 re-replacements, 36 had CAB and 286 had isolated replacement; the mortality was 8.3% (3) and 6.6% (19), respectively. Eleven predictive factors inclusive of age, concomitant CAB, urgency status, New York Heart Association (NYHA) at Re-op and year of Re-op (year periods) were considered. RESULTS: The mortality for 1979-1986 was 6.1% (2/33); 1987-1992, 7.7% (8/104); and 1993-2000, 6.5% (12/185) (pNS). The mortality by urgency status for elective/urgent was 6.4% (19/299); and emergent, 13.0% (3/23) (pNS). The mortality for NYHA I/II was 2.0% (1/50), III 4.2% (8/191) and IV 16.0% (13/81) (P=0.00063), for gender was male 4.6% and female 13.3% (P=0.011), for age at implant 'No' (no re-operation) 51.6+/-12.2 years and 'Yes' (yes re-operation) 59.9+/-7.3 years (P=0.00004), for age at explant 'No' 62.6+/-12.7 years and 'Yes' 70.6+/-6.5 years (P=0.00001), and for age at explant <60 years 0.0% (0/110), 60-70 years 8.5% (10/117) and >70 years 12.6% (12/95) (P=0.0011). The predictive risk factor assessment by multivariate regression analysis revealed only NYHA III Odds Ratio 1.7 and IV 7.8 P=0.0082. For the period 1993-2000 of re-operations only gender was significant; age at implant, age at explant, CAB pre-Re-op, CAB concomitant with Re-op, urgency at Re-op, ejection fraction, valve lesion and NYHA at Re-op were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Bioprosthetic aortic re-operative mortality can be lowered by re-operation in low rather than medium to severe NYHA functional class. The routine evaluation of patients can achieve earlier low risk re-operative surgery.

Adult↗