液氮保存同种带支架人工瓣膜流体力学测试

目的：利用脉动流模拟实验装置测试液氮保存同种带支架瓣膜流体力学性能，同时与国产perfect牛心包人工瓣膜对比研究。方法：采集同种瓣膜，缝制成21^#、23^#、25^#同种带支架主动脉和同种带支架肺动脉人工瓣膜，经液氮保存，使用国产脉动流实验装置测试瓣膜流体力学性能，采用ISO／FDA浮估标准，分别测量各流量下的跨瓣压差、有效瓣口面积(EOA)和回流比。并与相应型号国产perfect牛心包人工瓣膜对比研究。结果：21^#、23^#、25^#同种带支架主动脉和肺动脉瓣膜的跨瓣压差和回流百分比差异无显著性，但较perfect瓣大。同种带支架主、肺动脉瓣膜的EOA差异无显著性，但较perfect牛心包生物瓣膜的略小些。同种带支架瓣膜实际开口面积(AOA)小于perfect牛心包瓣，但有效瓣口面积，实际开口面积比值无差别。结论：同种带支架主动脉和肺动脉人工瓣膜流体力学性能满意，同种带支架主动脉瓣膜与同种带支架肺动脉瓣膜流体力学性能无差别。     

Acute endocarditis treated with radical debridement and implantation of mechanical or stented bioprosthetic devices

BACKGROUND: Operation for active infective endocarditis carries high mortality and morbidity rates, especially when the annulus is involved. Overall the literature favors the use of autograft and homograft valves because of better resistance to infection. In our clinic during the last 5 years we used an aggressive surgical approach to infective endocarditis in combination with implantation of mechanical or stented bioprosthetic devices. METHODS: From 1994 to 1999, 50 adults with aortic and/or mitral valve endocarditis underwent valve replacement. The median age of the 36 men and 14 women was 58 years (range, 17 to 78 years). All patients had active endocarditis at the time of operation. Native valve endocarditis was present in 48 patients and prosthetic valve endocarditis was present in 2 patients. The aortic valve was affected in 24 patients, the mitral valve in 21 patients, and both the aortic and mitral valves in 5 patients. Two of the patients with mitral endocarditis also had infection of the tricuspid valve. Annular destruction was present in 24 patients (48%). The patients were treated with radical excision of all infected tissue. The annular defects were closed, if possible, with direct sutures. Otherwise, a reconstruction was performed. Follow-up was 100% complete with a median follow-up period of 45 months (range, 6 to 66 months). RESULTS: The procedures were performed without lethal bleeding complications. Early mortality was 12% and the actuarial survival at follow-up was 80%. In none of the patients who died was death related to the prosthetic valve or recurrence of the endocarditis. Only 1 patient (2%) developed recurrence of the infective endocarditis and was reoperated with a Ross procedure. Three and a half years later the patient developed severe valve insufficiency of the autograft and was operated again with implantation of a mechanical device. CONCLUSIONS: Native and prosthetic valve endocarditis can be treated successfully with aggressive surgical debridement and implantation of mechanical or stented bioprosthetic devices with a low risk of recurrent endocarditis.     

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.     

Hydrodynamic function of the second-generation mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis

BACKGROUND: The hydrodynamic function of the smaller size Mitroflow Synergy stented pericardial bioprostheses has been studied in an in vitro fresh tissue aortic root model and compared with previous studies of free-sewn bioprostheses. METHODS: Three valves of each of the sizes 19, 21, and 23 mm were sutured into fresh tissue aortic roots and tested in a pulsatile flow simulator using two different ventricular input impedance conditions. A high-speed camera was used to study the leaflet opening and closing configurations. Mean pressure difference as a function of root mean square forward flow, effective orifice area, regurgitant volumes, and total energy loss across the valves was measured. RESULTS: Mean pressure difference with respect to root mean square forward flow decreased as the valve size increased. Thus effective orifice area increased as the valve size increased. The open leaflet configuration images showed that all three sizes of Mitroflow valves had a large circular orifice with minimal open leaflet deformation. All valves closed competently with no visible leakage and no closed regurgitant volume. The Mitroflow valves showed better effective orifice areas compared with previously tested frame-mounted porcine bioprostheses but lower effective orifice areas compared with porcine stentless bioprostheses; however, the open leaflet bending deformation was better than for any of the previously tested bioprosthetic valves. CONCLUSIONS: The hydrodynamic function of the Mitroflow Synergy stented pericardial bioprosthesis shows potential for good in vivo hemodynamic performance. The good hemodynamic performance combined with relative ease of implantation technique makes the pericardial valve a good valve in the aortic position, particularly in older patients with small annuli.     

Left ventricular mass reduction after aortic valve replacement: homografts, stentless and stented valves.

BACKGROUND: We studied the effect of four different types of prosthetic aortic valves on time course and extent of regression of left ventricular hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis. METHODS: Four groups of 10 patients each were randomly assigned to receive: (1) aortic homograft preserved in antibiotic solution at 4 degrees C, (2) Toronto stentless porcine valve, (3) Medtronic Freestyle stentless valve, or (4) Medtronic Intact aortic valve. The left ventricular mass index, effective orifice area index, and peak and mean transaortic gradients were measured by Doppler echocardiography before the operation and 8 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The hemodynamic performance indices were much better for the homograft and stentless valves than for the stented one. The absolute left ventricular mass index reduction was greater in the homograft group compared with the Intact (p = 0.0004) and Toronto (p = 0.007) groups. The extent of percent left ventricular mass index reduction was greater only in the homograft group versus Intact group (p = 0.005). The multilinear regression analysis showed that the only predictors of a larger percentage of left ventricular mass index reduction were the homograft type, a higher valve size index, and a higher preoperative left ventricular mass index. CONCLUSIONS: When a stentless or homograft aortic valve was used instead of a stented valve to replace a stenotic aortic valve there was more complete or at least faster regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. The hemodynamic performance of stentless porcine valves was similar to that of aortic homografts, nevertheless the aortic homografts preserved in antibiotic solution offered a faster regression of left ventricular hypertrophy during the same period of time.     

Aortic Valve Replacement with Stentless Porcine Bioprostheses

The implantation of stentless porcine valves (SPVs) is technically more demanding than implantation of stented bioprosthetic valves. Implantation of the Toronto SPV bioprosthesis requires an,understanding of the relationships between the leaflets and the aortic annulus and sinotubular junction. In addition to proper alignment of the three commissures within the aortic root, the diameter of sinotubular junction should not exceed the external diameter of the porcine aortic valve after completion of the operation. The Medtronic Freestyle porcine aortic root bioprosthesis can be used for subcoronary implantation as well as for aortic root replacement. Degenerative calcification of a tricuspid aortic valve is the most common cause of aortic valve disease in older patients. Implantation of stentless valves in the subcoronary position is usually feasible because the geometry of the aortic root is well maintained in these patients. The bicuspid aortic valve is the second most common cause of aortic valve disease in older patients and the most common in younger patients. These patients frequently have dilated aortic root, and the Medtronic Freestyle bioprosthesis is ideal for implantation using the root inclusion technique. Stentless porcine bioprostheses are minimally obstructive and associated with low mean systolic gradients. In addition, they have better hemodynamic performance during exercise than stented bioprostheses. For these reasons, patient-prosthesis mismatch has not been described with stentless valves. Left ventricular function after aortic valve replacement appears to be better with stentless than with stented bioprostheses. Comparative, nonrandomized studies of aortic valve replacement with stented and stentless valves suggest that the risk of cardiac death is reduced with stentless valves and the rates of valve-related complications also appear to be lower. What remains unknown is whether stentless valves are more durable than stented ones.     

Where is the common sense in aortic valve replacement? A review of hemodynamics and sizing of stented tissue valves

Heated debates revolve around the hemodynamic performance of stented aortic tissue valves. Because the opening area strongly influences the generation of a pressure gradient over the prosthesis, and the outer diameter determines which valve actually fits into the aortic root, it would seem logical that the valve with the greatest opening area in relation to its outer diameter should allow the best hemodynamic performance. Interestingly, neither of these 2 parameters is reflected by the manufacturing companies' size labels or suggested sizing strategies. In addition, it is known that valves with the same size label from different companies may differ significantly in their actual dimension (outer diameter). Finally, the manufacturer-suggested sizing strategies differ so much that expected differences from valve design may get lost because of differences in sizing. These size and sizing differences and the lack of information on the geometric opening area complicate true hemodynamic comparisons significantly. Furthermore, some fluid dynamic considerations regarding the determination of opening area by echocardiography (the effective orifice area) introduce additional obscuring factors in the attempt to compare hemodynamic performance data of different stented tissue valves. We analyzed the true dimensions of different tissue prostheses and the manufacturer-suggested sizing strategies in relation to published effective orifice areas. We have demonstrated how sizing and implantation strategy have much greater impact on postoperative valve hemodynamics than valve brand or type. In addition, our findings may explain the different opinions regarding valve hemodynamics of different tissue valves.     

Functional hemodynamic assessment of the 21-mm and 23-mm CarboMedics Top Hat aortic prosthetic valve

Between 1993 and 1996 the CarboMedics Top Hat supraannular aortic valve was implanted in 41 patients at the Wessex Cardiothoracic Centre (age, 39 to 74 years; mean, 61.3+/-8.9 years). Comparisons of annular dimensions made at surgery indicate that conventional annular valve replacement would have required at least a size smaller valve. This was particularly marked when a prosthetic mitral valve was in place. Operative mortality was 2.4%. There were also three late deaths. Echocardiography before and after symptom-limited treadmill testing has been performed in 21 patients. The mean time to follow-up was 16.1 months. The Doppler-derived indices of forward flow pre- and postexercise were expressed as mean+/-standard deviation. For 23-mm valves the values were: peak valve gradient 21.43+/-7.46 mm Hg and 35.86+/-14.4 mm Hg, aortic valve area 1.13+/-0.39 cm2 and 1.24+/-0.54 cm2. For 21-mm valves the values were: peak valve gradient 24.84+/-8.2 mm Hg and 31.29+/-5.84 mm Hg, aortic valve area 1.08+/-0.44 cm2 and 0.95 +/-0.2 cm2. The Top Hat valve has a good hemodynamic profile at rest and during exercise. Surgical considerations make it particularly useful in patients with a small aortic annulus and in patients undergoing combined aortic and mitral valve replacement.     

Discrepancies Between Sizer and Valve Dimensions: Implications for Small Aortic Root

Background. Precise labeling of sizer and valve diameters is crucial for optimal valve selection especially in the small aortic root. This study examines the accuracy of manufacturers’ markings on small aortic prostheses and sizers.

Methods. Sizer and valve dimensions of 22 different mechanical aortic prostheses (19 to 23 mm) were evaluated by caliper micrometer measurements.

Results. Nearly all sizers exceeded their marked dimensions by up to 1.0 mm. Measured tissue annulus diameters for 19-mm-labeled valves varied between 18.3 and 19.6 mm, for 21-mm valves from 20.5 to 21.6 mm, and for 23-mm valves from 22.4 to 23.5 mm, respectively. The orifice areas ranged from 1.5 to 2.06 cm² for 19-mm valves, from 2.0 to 2.55 cm² for 21-mm valves, and from 2.4 to 3.09 cm² for 23-mm valves, respectively.

Conclusions. Actual sizer dimensions and tissue annulus diameters of various small mechanical aortic prostheses varied considerably from their marked diameters. These differences should be considered to ensure the optimal prosthesis selection for each patient.     

Early and late risk of mitral valve replacement. A 12 year concomitant comparison of the porcine bioprosthetic and prosthetic disc mitral valves

A consecutive series of 706 mitral valve replacements was performed from January, 1972, to January, 1984. The follow-up ranged from 6 to 150 months with a mean of 50 and a median of 43 months. Seven percent (50) of the patient were lost to follow-up. There were 243 men and 463 women, whose ages ranged from 17 to 86 years (mean 58). A porcine bioprosthetic valve was implanted in 528 patients (514 Hancock and 14 Carpentier-Edwards valves) and a prosthetic disc valve in 178 patients (102 standard disc Bj?rk-Shiley, 34 Beall, and 42 Harken disc valves). Seven patients were in Functional Class II, 325 in Class III, and 374 in Class IV. A concomitant operative procedure was performed in 253 of the 706 patients (36%). Mitral regurgitation was the primary hemodynamic lesion in 363 and mitral stenosis in 343. Operative mortality figures were as follows: 77 of 706 (11%) for the overall group, 34 of 453 (7.5%) for isolated mitral valve replacement, 30 of 169 (17.5%, p = 0.001) for mitral replacement plus coronary bypass, 49 of 528 (9%) for the bioprosthetic valve group, and 28 of 178 (16%) for the prosthetic disc valve group (p = 0.01). After the operation, 262 patients were in Functional Class I, 99 in Class II, and 18 in Class III. The long-term survival rate was significantly lower in patients who had an associated procedure (45% +/- 6%), who had mitral regurgitation rather than mitral stenosis (53% +/- 5% versus 67% +/- 4%) (p = 0.002), who were in Functional Class IV rather than Classes I to III (51% +/- 4% versus 70% +/- 4%) (p = 0.001), and who received a prosthetic disc valve rather than a bioprosthesis (40% +/- 6% versus 67% +/- 4%) (p = 0.001). Thromboembolic rates were significantly higher with prosthetic valves than with bioprosthetic valves (4.6% +/- 0.22% versus 2.4% +/- 0.5% per patient-year of follow-up), and the incidence of anticoagulant-related hemorrhage was significantly higher in the prosthetic valve group (1.65% versus 0.43% per patient-year). Primary valve dysfunction was significantly more common in the bioprostheses (1.23% versus 0.40% per patient-year).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

Stentless bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement after a homograft root replacement: Toronto SPV implantation after a homograft root

Stentless bioprosthetic valves for the aortic position offer excellent hemodynamic characteristics, making them an attractive choice ahead of other valve prostheses. We present a unique case in which a patient underwent aortic valve replacement with a stentless porcine valve and mitral valve repair for severe aortic and mitral regurgitation 1 year after a homograft root replacement for acute aortic endocarditis. The rationale for our approach is outlined in the context of current surgical trends.     

Optimal size of prostheses for functioning of the aortic prosthetic valve in aortic and mitral valve replacement with annular enlargement through Manouguian's technique

There is not yet agreement about the optimal size of the prostheses in aortic and mitral valve replacement with Manouguian's technique. In this technique, the aortic prosthetic valve can be pushed upon the mitral prosthesis which may cause dysfunction of the aortic prosthetic valve. The aim of this study was to clarify the size of the prostheses needed to avoid dysfunction of the aortic prosthetic valve. Three patients underwent aortic and mitral valve replacement through this procedure. Two of them had active aortic and mitral valve endocarditis. Aortomitral continuity involved with abscesses could be approached and completely excised using this technique. All patients survived the operation, but 1 of them suffered aortic mechanical valve dysfunction for the reason stated. Anatomical analysis of the geometrical relation of the 2 prosthetic valves suggests that the mitral annulus should be enlarged less than 25 mm to avoid dysfunction of the aortic prosthetic valve.     

Prosthetic valve replacement in children

Between 1975 and 1998, 27 patients aged 3 months to 14 years underwent replacement of the aortic, mitral, tricuspid, and pulmonary valves. Five different types of prosthetic valves were used; three were mechanical valves and two were bioprosthetic valves. There were 3 hospital deaths. Among the 24 survivors there were 4 late deaths. Arrhythmia requiring pacemaker implantation occurred in 2 cases after AVR and TVR. Thromboembolic events occurred in 3 patients, all with mechanical valves in pulmonary position. Infective endocarditis occurred in 1 patient after PVR with a mechanical valve. No bleeding complication occurred among the patients on a regimen of Coumadin and Dipyridamole. Two patients, both with Hancock bioprosthesis, required a second valve replacement on account of severely calcified changes. Mechanical valves in left side heart had a satisfactory long-term performance. One patient who had undergone MVR for congenital parachute mitral valve received reoperation for growth. A larger sized prosthetic valve should be used at the first replacement, and special procedures including supra-annular positioning or annular augmentation are recommended for MVR or AVR respectively.     

Relation between size of prosthesis and valve gradient: comparison of two aortic bioprosthesis.

OBJECTIVES: The outcome of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) may be affected by the influence of prosthesis-patient mismatch on left ventricular mass regression. However, due to the discrepancies in labeled valve size, size of sizer and actual valve dimension, it is difficult to compare different valve types. In order to perform an objective comparison, this study was designed to compare the hemodynamics of the Edwards Lifescience pericardial (ELP) and the Medtronic Mosaic porcine (MM) bioprosthesis between patients receiving the same valve size and between patients with the same aortic annulus diameter. METHODS: This prospective, randomized study was performed on 81 hospital survivors out of 86 patients undergoing AVR with either the ELP (n=39) or the MM (n=42) bioprosthesis. Intra-operative randomization was performed after the surgeon had excised the aortic valve, measured the size of the aortic annulus with three different sizers (ELP, MM and a set of metric sizers), and decided which size he would implant for either of the valve types. All valves were implanted in supra-annular position with the same implantation technique. Echocardiographic follow-up was performed early postoperatively and 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: In 12 (31%) of the patients receiving the ELP-valve, as compared to 3 (7.1%) of the patients receiving the MM-valve, the labeled valve size was smaller than the aortic annulus diameter (P<0.05). Early postoperatively, mean (17.4+/-3.1 vs 20.3+/-3.6 mmHg) and peak gradients (30.1+/-4.8 vs 37.6+/-9.6 mmHg) for the 21 mm ELP-valve were lower than for the 21 mm MM-valve (P<0.05). All other hemodynamic parameters did not show significant differences at any time point. When the same aortic annulus diameter was taken as a reference, there were no significant hemodynamic differences between either valve type at any time point, regardless of the valve size implanted. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the hemodynamic performance of the ELP and the MM bioprosthesis are comparable when the same aortic annulus diameter is taken as a reference. The significant variabilities between different valve types with regard to labeled valve size, valve-sizer size and actual valve size have to be taken into account, when hemodynamic comparisons are performed.     

Risk of Reoperative Valve Replacement for Failed Mitral and Aortic Bioprostheses

Background. One factor influencing the choice of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves is reoperation for bioprosthetic valve failure. To define its operative risk, we reviewed our results with valve reoperation for bioprosthetic valve failure.

Methods. Records of 400 consecutive patients having reoperative mitral, aortic, or mitral and aortic bioprosthetic valve replacement from January 1985 to March 1997 were reviewed.

Results. Reoperations were for failed bioprosthetic mitral valves in 219 patients, failed aortic valves in 153 patients, and failed aortic and mitral valves in 28 patients. Including 26 operations (6%) for acute endocarditis, 153 operations (38%) were nonelective. One hundred nine patients (27%) had other valves repaired or replaced, and 72 (18%) had coronary bypass grafting. The incidence of death in the mitral, aortic, and double-valve groups was respectively, 15 (6.8%), 12 (7.8%), and 4 (14.3%); and the incidence of prolonged postoperative hospital stay (>14 days) was, respectively, 57 (26.0%), 41 (26.8%), and 8 (28.6%). Only 7 of 147 patients (4.8%) having elective, isolated, first-time valve reoperation died. Multivariable predictors (p < 0.05) of hospital death were age greater than 65 years, male sex, renal insufficiency, and nonelective operation; and predictors of prolonged stay were acute endocarditis, renal insufficiency, any concurrent cardiac operation, and elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure.

Conclusions. Reoperative bioprosthetic valve replacement can be performed with acceptable mortality and hospital stay. The best results are achieved with elective valve replacement, without concurrent cardiac procedures.     

Ionescu-Shiley valve failure. II: Experience with 25 low-profile explants.

A group of patients who had low-profile Ionescu-Shiley valves implanted, 237 aortic and 130 mitral, was reviewed for cases of bioprosthetic failure requiring explantation. Fourteen such aortic and 11 mitral valves were recovered at operation. The most common reason for explantation was valvular insufficiency due to cusp tears, accounting for 50.0% of aortic and 82.0% of mitral explants. Morphologic examination of the valves suggested a common mode of failure with tears, and this is illustrated. The clinical and pathologic patterns of this valve's failure are compared with those of the standard-profile Ionescu-Shiley valve, and many similarities exist. A tendency for a larger proportion of mitral valve failures with tears is, however, in contrast to observations of the standard-profile valve, in which aortic failures are more common. Additionally, low-profile valves, in either the aortic or mitral positions, fail after a shorter time in situ than their standard-profile counterparts, at a mean of 45.1 months versus 78.0 in the aortic position (p less than 0.01) and at 52.2 months versus 73.8 in the mitral position (p less than 0.05). These differences in the performance of the Ionescu-Shiley valve models may have implications for the design of future bioprostheses.     

In vivo hemodynamics of prosthetic St. Jude Medical and Ionescu-Shiley heart valves analyzed by computer

Using a method of our own design, we evaluated intraoperatively the function of prosthetic heart valves. The changing hemodynamics induced by a stress test were assessed by simultaneously measuring the mean transvalvular pressure gradient and the stroke volume. The effective orifice area (EOA) of the valves was determined for each stroke by computer analysis, and this value was compared with the actual orifice area. Data were collected from 19 patients undergoing aortic or mitral valve replacement or both with 17 St. Jude Medical and 12 Ionescu-Shiley valves. The mean pressure gradient increased with tachycardia and an increase in mean left atrial pressure in the mitral position, but decreased with a decrease in cardiac output and peak left ventricular pressure in the aortic position. The St. Jude Medical valve had a smaller mean pressure gradient than the Ionescu-Shiley bioprosthesis. For both valves, the EOA increased with valve size. The St. Jude Medical valve had a greater EOA than the Ionescu-Shiley bioprosthesis, regardless of the valve size (p less than 0.005). However, the performance of prosthetic leaflets was better with the Ionescu-Shiley bioprosthesis than with the St. Jude Medical mechanical valve (p less than 0.001). This method involving computer analysis of each cardiac cycle proved to be useful for evaluating prosthetic heart valve function in the presence of changing hemodynamics.     

The failure modes of biological prosthetic heart valves

Bioprosthetic heart valves have been used since the 1960s, starting with the use of homograft aortic valves obtained from human cadavers. Today prosthetic heart valves are used widely, and bioprostheses account for close to 40% of all heart-valve replacements. Although most bioprosthesis are still stented porcine aortic valves, the introduction of stentless valves and the increasing use of cryopreserved homograft valves has led to an upsurge of interest in bioprosthesis. There have been significant changes in the handling and fixation of porcine aortic valves; however, their modes of failure remain virtually unchanged, although many bioprosthetic valves now last for considerably longer periods. This article reviews the modes of failure of bioprosthetic heart valves.     

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).     

The porcine bioprosthetic valve. Twelve years later

The porcine bioprosthetic heart valve has been commercially available since 1970 and has been the prosthetic heart valve of choice in our institution since 1971. Since that time 817 patients with 951 porcine valves have been discharged from the hospital and were available for long-term follow-up. Patient survival rates, with operative mortality excluded, were 80% +/- 1.7% (standard error) at 5 years and 68% +/- 2.7% at 10 years. Survival rates for patients with aortic valve prostheses were 78% +/- 2.8% at 5 years and 57% +/- 5.4% at 10 years; for patients with mitral valve prostheses, survival rates were 80% +/- 2.2% at 5 years and 69% +/- 3.2% at 10 years. Freedom from thromboembolism for aortic valves was 93% +/- 1.4% at 5 years and 88% +/- 2.6% at 10 years; for mitral valves the freedom from degeneration or primary tissue failure for aortic valves was 97% +/- 1.3% at 5 years and 71% +/- 7.6% at 10 years; for mitral valves these figures were 96% +/- 1.2% at 5 years and 71% +/- 4.1% at 10 years. Valves in patients 35 years of age and below had a significantly greater rate of degeneration (p less than 0.001). After 12 years' experience the porcine bioprosthetic valve has performed well with regard to patient survival and low rate of thromboembolism. For patients older than 35 years the freedom from primary tissue failure is 80% at 10 years.