心脏瓣膜术后心室辅助治疗

目的 总结瓣膜病变术后重症心衰病人置入心室辅助(VADs)装置时,心脏瓣膜或人工瓣膜处理方法及围术期抗凝管理的经验.方法 回顾1994年1月到2008年6月,宾夕法尼亚大学附属医院心脏中心157例置入VADs病人中,10例为瓣膜术后重症心衰者.对于二尖瓣和三尖瓣病变,无论成形或置换,置入VADs时均未处理原瓣膜或人工瓣膜(环).5例主动脉瓣病变病例置入VADs时,2例用生物瓣膜取代了原机械瓣膜,1例未处理原来生物瓣膜,1例未处理原机械瓣膜,1例取出机械瓣膜,用牛心包封闭主动脉根部.结果 所有病人置入VADs术后应用抗凝治疗.10例病人中,停VAD出院和VAD姑息治疗各1例;转心脏移植4例;4例死亡,3例为多器官衰竭,1例为血栓栓塞事件.结论 瓣膜病变术后置入VADs总的生存率是60%,与非瓣膜病心衰病人置入VADs相比,未增加手术风险.

Abstract：

Objective An increasing number of patients requiring ventricular assist devices (VAD) have had previous valvular corrections,including valve repair,and valve replacement with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves.The operative and peri-operative management of these patients has been varied.Methods A retrospective study of VADs between Jan 1994 and June 2008 revealed 10 patients with previous prosthetic valves requiring management during and after VAD placement.Three patients were supported post-cardiotomy after valve surgery.Two patients were supported due to cardiogenic shock postopera-tively.Four patients were supported as a bridge to transplantation.One patient was supported as a destination therapy.Results The mitral valve was left untreated during VAD implantation regardless of valve repair or replacement.For aortic valves,the mechanical aortic valve was replaced with tissue valve in two patients and left untreated in one case.One patient had tricuspid valve repair previously and was left untouched.All patients with prosthetic valves in aortic,mitral and tricuspid position during VAD support received anticoagulation therapy.There were 4 deaths,and 4 went on to transplantation.One patient weaned from VAD and discharge from hospital.One patient received HeartMate Ⅰ as destination therapy.The most common causes of death were multisystem organ failure and sepsis.One patient had a thromboembolic event.Conclusion The survival rate of 60% is encouraging when compared to overall survival rates.The most common cause of death was multisystem organ failure.Patients with prosthetic valves may be safely managed during VAD support.     

Management of Prosthetic Valves during Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Abstract Background: An increasing number of patients requiring ventricular assist devices (VAD) have had previous valvular corrections, including valve repair and valve replacement with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves. The operative and peri‐operative management of these patients has been varied. Methods: A retrospective study of VADs between January 1994 and June 2008 revealed 10 patients with previous prosthetic valves requiring management during and after VAD placement. Three patients were supported postcardiotomy after valve surgery. Two patients were supported due to cardiogenic shock postoperatively. Four patients were supported as a bridge to transplantation. One patient was supported as a destination therapy (DT). Results: The mitral, valve was left untreated during VAD implantation regardless of valve repair or replacement. For aortic valves, the mechanical aortic valve was replaced with tissue valve in two patients and left untreated in one case. One patient had tricuspid valve repair previously and was left untouched. All patients with prosthetic valves in aortic, mitral and tricuspid position during VAD support received anticoagulation therapy. There were four deaths, and four went on to transplantation. One patient was weaned from VAD and discharged from the hospital. One patient received HeartMate I as DT. The most common causes of death were multisystem organ failure (MSOF) and sepsis. One patient had a thromboembolic event. Conclusions: The survival rate of 60% is encouraging when compared to overall survival rates. The most common cause of death was MSOF. Patients with prosthetic valves may be safely managed during VAD support. (J Card Surg 2010;25:601‐605)     

Preexisting mitral valve prosthesis in patients undergoing left ventricular assist device implantation

Experience with patients undergoing left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation with preexisting mitral valve prostheses is limited. Patients with mechanical heart valves might have an increased risk of thromboembolism; in patients with biologic valves, there might be a risk of structural deterioration of the leaflets. Out of 597 patients supported with a LVAD system between 2000 and 2009, 18 patients had mitral valve surgery prior to implantation. We excluded all patients below 18 years of age, those with postcardiotomy failure, and patients who had had mitral valve reconstruction. Only 1% of the studied patient population (n= 6) had mitral valve replacement. The mitral valve implantation has been performed 7.4 ± 9.4 years prior to LVAD insertion. None of the valves (one biologic, five mechanical) were exchanged or explanted. LVAD implantation was done either with left lateral thoracotomy (n= 5) or with midline resternotomy (n= 1). Temporary right ventricular assist device support was necessary in one case (16.6%); 30-day mortality was 16.6% (n= 1). Median support time was 14 ± 15 months. Two patients received heart transplantation after 6 and 26 months on the device; four patients died on mechanical circulatory support after 1, 2, 5, and 40 months. No valve or pump thrombosis or other clinically relevant thromboembolic events were observed. Only a small number of patients (1%) had a preexisting mitral valve prosthesis prior to LVAD implantation. No severe adverse events were observed when the prosthesis was left in place. Attention should be paid to the anticoagulation regime.     

LVAD support in patients with bioprosthetic valves

The presence of mechanical or bioprosthetic valves has traditionally excluded patients from mechanical circulatory support. However, several centers have now developed algorithms for the surgical management of native or prosthetic valve disease in patients requiring left ventricular assist device insertion. We report adverse events associated with bioprosthetic valves in the mitral and tricuspid positions in 2 patients who received long-term mechanical support. We recommend anticoagulation for all patients with prosthetic valves in the mitral or tricuspid position to avoid thromboembolism, inflow conduit occlusion, or valvular incompetence.     

Ventricular assist device support in patients with mechanical heart valves

Background. Due to potential thromboembolic complications, mechanical valves within the native heart are often considered contraindications to ventricular assist device (VAD) support.

Methods. A retrospective review of VAD cases between June 1982 and March 1998 showed 8 patients with mechanical valves who were supported with Thoratec (Pleasanton, CA) VADs.

Results. There were 6 males and 2 females ranging in age from 20 to 69 years (mean 49.8 ± 5.6). Four patients were supported when they could not be weaned from cardiopulmonary bypass after reparative procedures and were thought to have reversible injuries. Four patients were supported as a bridge-to-cardiac transplantation. Two patients had mechanical mitral valves, 2 had aortic valve replacements, 1 had an aortic homograft and mechanical mitral valve, 2 had mechanical aortic and mitral prosthesis, and 1 patient had aortic, mitral, and triscupid valves. The types of valvular prostheses were St. Jude (5 patients) and Bjork-Shiley (3 patients). Duration of support ranged from 3.0 to 150 days (mean 34 days). Four patients were supported with biventricular assist devices and 4 had left VADs. Dextran and intravenous heparin anticoagulation were used in the shorter duration patients, with warfarin being used in the bridge patients. One patient received warfarin and aspirin. At the time of autopsy or device removal, only 1 of the 12 mechanical intracardiac valves showed any evidence of thrombosis, including the aortic valves in 2 patients supported for 2 and 5 months. There were no clinical thromboembolic events. Four patients (50%) were discharged (1 weaned, 3 transplanted).

Conclusions. The 50% (4 of 8) survival rate compares favorably with the 44% (41 of 92) overall survival rate for our Thoratec patients (bridge plus recovery) who did not have mechanical prosthetic valves. These data suggest that patients with mechanical intracardiac valves can be supported for short durations with some additional risk, which is yet to be determined.     

Use of ventricular assist devices in patients with mitral valve prostheses

Abstract Background: Use of ventricular assist devices (VADs) in patients with prosthetic valves may carry an increased risk of thromboembolism; however, clinical information is lacking. The aim of this study was to report our experience of the use of VADs in patients with prosthetic mitral valves. Methods: A retrospective analysis of 747 VAD patients from January 1995 to May 2010 was performed. Results: Thirteen patients with a prosthetic mitral valve (average age 56 ± 10 years of age, nine mechanical valve, four biological valve) were identified. Indications for VAD implantation were as a bridge to transplant in 11 patients and destination therapy in two patients. At the time of VAD implant, no intervention to the prosthetic mitral valve was performed. Eight patients received a HeartMate I (Thoratec Corporation, Pleasanton, CA, USA), three patients received a HeartMate II (Thoratec Corporation), and two patients received a Thoratec VAD (Thoratec Corporation). Among nine mechanical valve patients, six patients were anticoagulated with warfarin, and one patient with heparin, while two patients did not receive anticoagulation due to bleeding. Ten patients were successfully transplanted at an average of 123 days post‐VAD implant, one died after 48 days from multiorgan failure, and two remained on VAD support. No clinical thromboembolic events were observed. No intracardiac thrombus was detected by echocardiogram or on the pathology of the explanted hearts. Five patients had experienced a bleeding event (postoperative mediastinal bleeds, gastrointestinal bleedings, retroperitoneal hematoma, and subconjuctival bleeding). Conclusions: In patients with mitral valve prostheses who require VAD support, leaving the prosthesis intact does not increase the incidence of adverse events. (J Card Surg 2011;26:334‐337)     

Alternative approach for use of a left ventricular assist device with a thrombosed prosthetic valve.

Implantation of a left ventricular assist device is problematic in patients with prosthetic heart valves, due to an increased risk of thrombosis with embolization. This report describes the use of a bovine pericardial patch to close the aortic outflow tract in a patient with a mechanical aortic valve and end-stage cardiomyopathy who required urgent left ventricular assist support. A successful outcome suggests that this technique may be of value in treating similar patients.     

Surgical management of valvular disease in patients requiring left ventricular assist device support

BACKGROUND: Success with long-term implantable left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) has led to increased use in patients previously thought to be unsuitable for mechanical circulatory assistance. Patients with preexisting or newly diagnosed valvular disease have been traditionally excluded from device placement. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with LVAD support in patients with valvular disease and to develop a management algorithm for these difficult patients. METHODS: We reviewed the clinical records of 199 consecutive patients who received the ThermoCardiosystems, Inc, HeartMate Pneumatic or Vented Electric LVAD. There were 18 patients (9%) who required surgical management of native or prosthetic valvular disease during LVAD implantation. RESULTS: Suture or patch closure of the aortic valve was performed in 6 patients, aortic valve plication and repair in 1 patient, mitral valve repair in 4 patients, and tricuspid valve annuloplasty in 5 patients. Two patients with mechanical mitral valve prostheses were treated with postoperative warfarin anticoagulation. Fifteen of the 18 patients with valvular pathology survived the immediate postoperative period (17% mortality). Eleven patients have either undergone transplantation or continue to be supported with an LVAD (61%). Operative mortality in LVAD patients without concomitant valve repair was 18% (n = 33) with a late mortality of 7% (n = 13). Seven of these late deaths occurred in patients who received a device as destination therapy. In the remaining 6 patients, the cause of death was sepsis (n = 2), multisystem organ failure (n = 2), driveline rupture (n = 1), and massive gastrointestinal bleed (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Preexisting native or prosthetic valve pathology does not increase the immediate perioperative risk of LVAD insertion; however, these patients continue to pose a challenge for postoperative management while awaiting transplantation.     

Comparison of outcomes after mitral valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve in patients between forty and sixty years of age

Background  The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), guidelines for choice of prosthetic valve based on patients’ age are difficult to apply to the developing world because of a lower life expectancy and difficulty in maintaining correct levels of anticoagulation for a variety of reasons. While there is general agreement on the choice of prosthetic valves for patients below 40 years of age (mechanical) and above 60 years of age (biologic), the 40 to 60 age group remains a grey zone. The goal of our study was to compare outcomes after mitral valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve in patients between forty and sixty years of age. Methods  From Jan 2003 to July 2008, 250 patients between the ages of 40 and 60, undergoing mitral valve replacement at our institution were randomized to receive either a mechanical or a bioprosthetic valve. Outcomes in the form of incidence of valve thrombosis and thromboembolism, bleeding complications, incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis and survival were compared in the two groups. Results  Out of 250 patients, 135 patients received mechanical valve and 115 patients were implanted with a bioprosthetic valve. Patients were followed up for a mean period of 3 years (range 6 months to 4.8 years). The incidence of valve thrombosis was higher in mechanical valve as compared to bioprosthetic valve (6% vs. 0.9%, p= 0.04). Similarly there was a higher incidence of thromboembolism in mechanical valves as compared to bioprosthetic valves (4.5% vs. 0%, p=0.03). Bleeding complications occurred more frequently in mechanical than bioprosthetic valve (6% vs. 0.9%, p=0.04). There was no significant difference in the incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis (2.2% vs. 2.7%, p >0.05) or survival at three years (96.2% vs. 97.2%, p > 0.05) in the two groups. Conclusions  Patients in the age group of 40 to 60 years undergoing mitral valve replacement with a mechanical valve have a higher incidence of thrombotic and bleeding complications as compared to bioprosthetic valve, even though short term survival is similar. This favours implantation of a bioprosthetic valve in this age group.     

Ventricular assist device use with mechanical heart valves: an outcome series and literature review

Background. Management of postcardiotomy cardiogenic shock with a ventricular assist device (VAD) is a common and accepted therapeutic option. However, VAD use in patients with mechanical heart valves (MHVs) is thought to carry an increased risk of thromboembolus. We report a series of 7 patients with combined VAD-MHV and review the literature.

Methods. A retrospective review was performed on all patients who were supported with a ventricular assist device with a mechanical heart valve in place. A literature review was also performed from 1966 to 2000.

Results. Seven patients were identified from April 1988 to June 2000 as having VAD support with a MHV. One thromboembolic event was documented in the 7 patients (14%). Five of the 7 patients (71%) underwent VAD explantation. Overall survival rate was 3 of 7 (43%). Causes of death included heart failure, renal failure, multisystem organ failure, adult respiratory distress syndrome, and cerebral hypoxia. All patients who died had support withdrawn at the request of the family. All patients discharged are currently alive with length of survival of 3, 26, and 84 months.

Conclusions. This study suggests that this population’s rate of survival to discharge and risk of thromboembolus compare favorably to that of the general VAD population. We believe that anticoagulation can be managed as with any MHV patient and that flow rates can be kept slightly lower, which may encourage valve washing.     

A case series of patients with left ventricular assist devices and concomitant mechanical heart valves

Mechanical heart valves left in situ at the time of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation are thought to potentially increase the risk of thromboembolism. Recommendations exist to replace dysfunctional mechanical mitral valves and any mechanical aortic valves at the time of LVAD implantation. Due to potential increases in cardiopulmonary bypass time and associated comorbidities with valve replacement, leaving a functional mechanical valve in place at LVAD implantation has been suggested to be a safe option. We retrospectively reviewed all patients with prior mechanical mitral or aortic valves undergoing LVAD implantation at our center between 2012 and 2017. Echocardiograms were read by a single cardiologist to assess for mechanical valve dysfunction. We identified 15 patients. Five patients had major bleeding requiring transfusion. On follow-up, 2 patients had hemorrhagic stroke and 2 had transient ischemic attach/ischemic stroke. In addition, 2 patients had LVAD thrombosis and 2 patients had LVAD driveline malfunction. Mild mechanical valve regurgitation was identified on follow-up echocardiograms of 2 patients. Rate of complications in patients with mechanical valves undergoing LVAD implantation was comparable to that reported for the general LVAD population. Leaving a functional mechanical valve in place at the time of LVAD implantation could be a reasonable alternative to valve replacement. More data are required to further guide patient care in these individuals.     

Flow-induced platelet activation in a St. Jude mechanical heart valve, a trileaflet polymeric heart valve, and a St. Jude tissue valve

Polymer heart valves have been under investigation since the 1960s, but their success has been hampered by an overall lack of durability mainly due to calcification of the leaflets and a relatively high rate of thromboembolic complications. A new polymer (Quatromer) trileaflet design was tested for its thrombogenic potential and was compared to that of existing prosthetic heart valves routinely implanted in patients: a St. Jude Medical bileaflet mechanical heart valve (MHV) and a St. Jude porcine bioprosthetic tissue valve. The valves were mounted in a left ventricular assist device and the procoagulant activity of the platelets was measured using a platelet activation state (PAS) assay. The PAS measurements indicated that the platelet activation level induced by the polymeric valve was very similar to that induced by the St. Jude Medical MHV and the St. Jude tissue valve. No significant difference was observed between the three valves, indicating that they have a comparable thrombogenic potential.     

Perioperative echocardiographic examination for ventricular assist device implantation

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are systems for mechanical circulatory support of the patient with severe heart failure. Perioperative transesophageal echocardiography is a major component of patient management, and important for surgical and anesthetic decision making. In this review we present the rationale and available data for a comprehensive echocardiographic assessment of patients receiving a VAD. In addition to the standard examination, device-specific pre-, intra-, and postoperative considerations are essential to the echocardiographic evaluation. These include: (a) the pre-VAD insertion examination of the heart and large vessels to exclude significant aortic regurgitation, tricuspid regurgitation, mitral stenosis, patent foramen ovale, or other cardiac abnormality that could lead to right-to-left shunt after left VAD placement, intracardiac thrombi, ventricular scars, pulmonic regurgitation, pulmonary hypertension, pulmonary embolism, and atherosclerotic disease in the ascending aorta; and to assess right ventricular function; and (b) the post-VAD insertion examination of the device and reassessment of the heart and large vessels. The examination of the device aims to confirm completeness of device and heart deairing, cannulas alignment and patency, and competency of device valves using two-dimensional, and color, continuous and pulsed wave Doppler modalities. The goal for the heart examination after implantation should be to exclude aortic regurgitation, or an uncovered right-to-left shunt; and to assess right ventricular function, left ventricular unloading, and the effect of device settings on global heart function. The variety of VAD models with different basic and operation principles requires specific echocardiographic assessment targeted to the characteristics of the implanted device.     

Neurological Complications During Pulsatile Ventricular Assistance With the Berlin Heart EXCOR in Children: Incidence and Risk Factors

The aim of this study is to describe the incidence of brain injury (BI) in children with end‐stage cardiac failure who were supported with the Berlin Heart EXCOR ventricular assist device (VAD) as a bridge to heart transplantation. Between January 2002 and January 2012, all patients <18 years of age who underwent the implantation of the Berlin Heart EXCOR at Bambino Gesú Children's Hospital were included. A total of 25 patients were included in this study. Median age and weight at implantation were 22.4 months (range 3.6–154.2) and 10 kg (range 4.5–36), respectively. Diagnosis included cardiomyopathy (n = 20) and congenital heart disease (n = 5). Eleven patients received atrial cannulation. Nine patients underwent biventricular assist device support. Seven patients underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation before the implantation of the EXCOR VAD. Median duration of VAD support was 51 days (range 2–167). Nine patients had evidence of acute BI including intracranial hemorrhage (n = 5) and cerebral ischemia (n = 4). Freedom from BI at 30, 60, and 90 days from VAD implantation was 80.7, 69.9, and 43.3%, respectively. Weight <10 kg at implantation was significantly associated with BI. BI is a frequent complication among children supported with EXCOR VAD and is associated with lower weight at implantation. However, our data do not support the association between size and BI. Future prospective multicenter studies are warranted to further help understand the etiology and the impact of BI and to improve functional outcomes for children undergoing EXCOR VAD mechanical support.     

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.     

Introduction of a flexible polymeric heart valve prosthesis with special design for aortic position

Objective: Current prosthetic heart valves necessitate permanent anticoagulation or have limited durability and impaired hemodynamic performance compared to natural valves. Recently a polymeric valve prostheses with special design for mitral position demonstrated excellent in vitro and in vivo results with improved durability and no need for permanent anticoagulation. In this study, a respective flexible polymeric aortic valve is presented and in vitro and in vivo results are reported. Methods: The aortic prosthesis (ADIAM^® lifescience AG, Erkelenz, Germany) is entirely made of polycarbonaturethane. The tri-leaflet flexible prosthesis mimicks the natural aortic valve and has a diminished pressure loss and reduced stress and strain peaks at the commissures. The valve underwent long-term in vitro testing and in vivo-testing in a growing calve animal model (20 weeks, 7 aortic valves) and was compared to two different commercial bioprostheses. Results: The polymeric aortic heart valve substitute demonstrated excellent in vitro and in vivo hemodynamics. Five/seven animals with aortic PCU-prostheses had an excellent clinical long-term course. The explanted valves showed a variable degree of calcification. Two of the seven animals died at 27 and 77 days due to pannus overgrowth causing severe LVOTO without degeneration of the valve itself. Both animals with commercial bioprostheses had to be sacrificed because of congestive heart failure related to structural degeneration of the bioprosthesis after 10 and 30 days of implantation. There was no increased thrombogenity of the PCU valves compared to bioprostheses. Conclusion: The new flexible polymeric aortic valve prosthesis is superior to current bioprostheses in animal testing.     

Cardiac Valve Prostheses: Pathological and Bioengineering Considerations

Cardiac valve replacement with mechanical prosthetic or bioprosthetic devices enhances patient survival and quality of life. Nevertheless, prosthesis-associated complications are frequent and contribute significantly to outcome. Thrombo-embolic complications are the most important problems in patients with mechanical valves, necessitating chronic anticoagulation in all patients receiving them. In contrast, patients with bioprosthetic valves, composed of chemically treated animal tissues, generally do not require anticoagulants. However, bioprostheses fail frequently by degeneration, especially that involving cuspal calcification. This paper reviews the pathological and bioengineering considerations in the selection of cardiac prosthetic valves and the management of patients who have received these devices. The significance, morphology, and pathogenesis of the observed major complications and other alterations during function are described in detail. Contemporary investigative trends are summarized, including studies of inhibition of mineralization and other degenerative changes in bioprostheses, improved design rigid mechanical valves with pyrolytic carbon occluders and the development of central-flow, flexible polymeric leaflet valves.     

Aortic valve selection in the elderly patient

To determine the influence of valve selection on valve-related morbidity and mortality and patient survival, comparative long-term performance characteristics of mechanical (N = 68) and bioprosthetic (N = 73) heart valves were analyzed for 141 patients more than 70 years old who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement between 1970 and 1985. Cumulative patient follow-up was 491 patient-years (average, 4.3 years per patient). Hospital mortality was 18% and 19% for patients with mechanical valves and bioprosthetic valves, respectively. Survival at 5 years was 61 +/- 7% (+/- the standard error) and 67 +/- 10% for recipients of mechanical valves and bioprosthetic valves, respectively. Male sex (p = 0.014) and urgency of operation (p = 0.006) were independent risk factors for hospital mortality. Atrial fibrillation increased valve-related mortality (p = 0.01). No patient required reoperation or experienced structural valve failure. While anticoagulant-related hemorrhage was increased in recipients of mechanical valves (9.2 +/- 2.1%/patient-year) compared with recipients of bioprosthetic valves (2.3 +/- 1.1%/patient-year), it did not result in a death or lead to permanent disability. There was no difference in freedom from any valve-related complication at 5 years. However, when all morbid events are considered, recipients of bioprosthetic valves experienced fewer valve-related complications than patients receiving mechanical valves (10.7 +/- 2.3%/patient-year versus 17.6 +/- 2.5%/patient-year, respectively; p less than 0.05). The reduced incidence of anticoagulant-related hemorrhage and the infrequent need for warfarin sodium anticoagulation favor selection of a bioprosthetic heart valve in patients older than 70 years.     

Comparative analysis of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves after aortic valve replacement

Comparative long-term performance characteristics of Bj?rk-Shiley mechanical and bioprosthetic valves were analyzed for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement between 1976 and 1981. A total of 419 patients received either a standard Bj?rk-Shiley (n = 266) or bioprosthetic (porcine, n = 126, or pericardial, n = 27) aortic valve. Cumulative patient follow-up was 1,705 patient-years; the average patient follow-up was 4.1 +/- 2.7 years. Survival data were obtained for all but 11 patients (97% complete follow-up) up to 9 years after operation. Survival at 5 years was 81% +/- 4% (+/- standard error) for Bj?rk-Shiley and for bioprosthetic valve recipients. Valve failure in the Bj?rk-Shiley group was predominantly due to valve-related mortality and did not result from structural failure. Patients with bioprosthetic valves experienced valve failure as a result of prosthetic valve endocarditis and intrinsic valve degeneration. Although patients with bioprostheses experienced a lower incidence of valve-related morbidity than Bj?rk-Shiley valve recipients (p less than 0.03), no difference could be demonstrated in the incidence of valve-related mortality or valve failure at 5 years between bioprosthetic and Bj?rk-Shiley valves. Mortality rate from valve failure was higher for Bj?rk-Shiley (86%, 12/14) than bioprosthetic valves (36%, 5/14) (p less than 0.01).     

Cerebral embolism associated with left ventricular assist device support and successful therapy with intraarterial urokinase.

A patient with a bioprosthetic aortic valve sustained a cerebral embolism during support with an implantable left ventricular assist device. This was lysed with intraarterial urokinase with complete resolution of the neurological deficit. Subsequently the patient underwent heart transplantation and remains neurologically intact. This case report is the first successful use of thrombolysis for cerebral embolism associated with a mechanical assist device.