Aortic regurgitation in rheumatoid arthritis necessitating aortic valve replacement.

Four cases of patients with aortic incompetence secondary to rheumatoid arthritis are presented. All survived aortic surgery (two having bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement and two a homograft aortic root replacement). A review of the pathophysiology and pathology of this rare cause of aortic regurgitation is presented. A rationale for the choice of aortic valve prosthesis is discussed.     

Valve replacement in the right side of the heart in children: long-term follow-up

Twenty-five patients (16 male, 9 female) underwent right-sided valve replacement (10 pulmonary valve replacement, 14 tricuspid valve replacement, 3 tricuspid plus pulmonary valve replacement, and 2 replacements of a single atrioventricular valve) at the University of Nebraska Medical Center from June 1977 to December 1986. Twenty-one patients (84%) are long-term survivors with 2,035 months follow-up (range, 41 to 143 months; mean, 96.9 months). Twenty-three Carpentier-Edwards bioprosthetic valves, one Ionescu-Shiley bioprosthetic valve, and nine St. Jude Medical valves were inserted. Follow-up of 17 patients with a Carpentier-Edwards valve ranged from 5 years 9 months to 11 years 9 months (mean, 8 years 11 months). To date there has been one reoperation after 3 years 4 months in this group. One patient who received an Ionescu-Shiley bioprosthesis required re-replacement at 20 months after operation. Three of 4 patients who received St. Jude mechanical valves and are long-term survivors have required replacement after 36 to 56 months. We conclude that the Carpentier-Edwards bioprosthetic valve is a viable option in the right side of the heart in the young age group when annular size is adequate to accommodate an appropriate bioprosthesis.     

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.     

Cardiac valve replacement in patients on dialysis: influence of prosthesis on survival

BACKGROUND: Mechanical valves have been recommended for patients on dialysis because of purported accelerated bioprosthesis degeneration. This study was undertaken to determine time-related outcomes in dialysis patients requiring cardiac valve replacement. METHODS: From 1986 to 1998, 42 patients on chronic preoperative dialysis underwent valve replacement; 17 received mechanical valves and 25 received bioprostheses. Age was similar in both groups: 54+/-18.5 years (mechanical) and 59+/-15.5 years (bioprosthetic, p = 0.4). Sites of valve replacement were aortic (27), mitral (11), and aortic and mitral (4). Follow-up was 100% complete. RESULTS: Survival at 3 and 5 years was 50% and 33% after mechanical valve replacement, and 36% and 27% after bioprosthetic valve replacement (p = 0.3). Four patients with bioprostheses required reoperation: 3 for allograft endocarditis and 1 at 10 months for mitral bioprosthesis degeneration. One patient who received a mechanical valve required reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic valve-related complications in patients on dialysis were similar for both mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. Because of the limited life expectancy of patients on dialysis, bioprosthesis degeneration will be uncommon. Therefore, surgeons should not hesitate to implant bioprosthetic valves in these patients.     

Acute early failure of a bioprosthesis after mitral valve replacement with completely preserved annuloventricular continuity

We report a case of acute early bioprosthetic failure after mitral valve replacement with completely preserved annuloventricular continuity. A 77-year-old man with left ventricular dysfunction underwent double valve replacement with Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprostheses. Routine postoperative echocardiography revealed 1.4 cm² of estimated mitral valve area, and computed tomography revealed a large thrombus in the left atrium. Transesophageal echocardiography showed a restricted opening of the bioprosthetic leaflets. After a month of strict anticoagulation therapy, cusp mobility improved, with a calculated mitral valve area of 3.5 cm²; and the left atrial thrombus had almost disappeared 2 months after initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Surgeons should be watchful for bioprosthetic thrombosis in patients with left ventricular dysfunction who undergo mitral valve replacement with a preserved mitral subvalvular apparatus.     

Tricuspid valve replacement: an analysis of 25 years of experience at a single center

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve replacement is seldom used in clinical practice, but the choice between mechanical and biologic prostheses remains controversial. METHODS: Between 1977 and 2002, 97 patients underwent tricuspid valve replacement and were followed at the Montreal Heart Institute Valve Clinic. Patients underwent replacement with bioprostheses (n = 82) and mechanical valves (n = 15). RESULTS: Patients with bioprosthetic tricuspid replacements averaged 53 +/- 13 years of age compared with 48 +/- 11 years in those with tricuspid mechanical valve replacements (p = 0.2). Isolated tricuspid valve replacement was performed in 11 patients (73%) in the mechanical valve group compared with 31 patients (38%. p = 0.01) in the bioprosthetic replacement group. In patients undergoing bioprosthetic tricuspid replacement, 51 (62%) underwent multiple associated valve replacements. The 5-year survival after tricuspid replacement averaged 60% +/- 13% in the mechanical valve group and 56% +/- 6% in the biologic replacement group (p = 0.8). The 5-year freedom rate from tricuspid valve reoperation averaged 91% +/- 9% in patients with mechanical valves and 97% +/- 3% in those with biologic valves (p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS; Patient survival after tricuspid valve replacement is suboptimal but related to the clinical condition at operation. The use of biologic prostheses for tricuspid valve replacement remains a good option in young patients because of limited life expectancy unrelated to the type of tricuspid prostheses at long-term follow-up.     

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.     

老年风湿性二尖瓣病变行二尖瓣修复术与生物瓣膜置换术中期效果比较

目的比较60岁以上老年患者风湿性二尖瓣修复(MVP)与生物瓣膜置换(MVR)的中期效果。方法选取2014年1月至2016年1月北京安贞医院瓣膜外科诊疗中心行风湿性二尖瓣修复或生物瓣置换手术的60岁以上老年风湿性二尖瓣病变患者,包括同期行三尖瓣修复术及房颤射频消融术患者;排除合并主动脉瓣手术、冠状动脉旁路移植手术、二次手术患者,最终纳入患者82例。根据二尖瓣手术方式分为二尖瓣修复组(MVP组,25例)和生物瓣置换组(MVR组,57例)。采用Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析并绘制曲线,通过Log Rank方法比较两组患者5年生存率的差异。结果围手术期全组患者平均年龄(66.37±4.41)岁。54.9%的患者心功能(NYHA分级)Ⅲ级。两组患者在体外循环时间(P=0.99),主动脉阻断时间(P=0.88),术后住院时间(P=0.76)差异均无统计学意义。MVR组3例患者住院期间死亡,病死率5.3%;MVP组无住院期死亡(P=0.24)。随访5年,最长随访63个月,平均随访47.03个月。MVR组6例死亡,其中4例死于心脑血管不良事件,2例死于非心脑血管不良事件。MVP组无死亡。两组均无再手术病例。结论风湿性二尖瓣病变的老年患者采用二尖瓣修复手术治疗能够获得较好的中期效果。     

Mitral valve replacement in the first 5 years of life

Between 1976 and 1986, 19 children aged 1 month to 5 years underwent replacement of the mitral (systemic atrioventricular) valve. Indications for valve replacement included isolated congenital mitral stenosis (n = 2), valve dysfunction associated with a more complex procedure (n = 15), and failed valvuloplasty (n = 2). Seven different valve types were used; nine were mechanical valves and ten were bioprosthetic valves. There were 6 hospital deaths (32%; 70% confidence limits, 20% to 47%). Among the 13 survivors there were 3 late deaths at a mean of 14 months after operation. The late deaths were unrelated to valve malfunction. Thromboembolic events occurred in 2 patients, both with mechanical valves. One minor bleeding complication occurred among 10 patients on a regimen of Coumadin (crystalline warfarin sodium). Five patients, all with bioprostheses, required a second valve replacement. Indications for reoperation included prosthetic valve regurgitation (n = 1) and calcific stenosis (n = 4). No early or late deaths occurred after second valve replacement. Survival was 51% +/- 12% (standard error) at 112 months after valve replacement. Analysis failed to identify age, weight, sex, previous operation, underlying cardiac lesion, or prosthesis size and type as significant risk factors for mortality. Mechanical valves had a lower reoperation rate compared with bioprostheses. These data suggest that although mitral valve replacement within the first 5 years of life is associated with a high operative and late mortality, satisfactory long-term palliation for many patients can be achieved. Mechanical valves are superior to bioprosthetic valves, and offer the best long-term results.     

Should we use mechanical valves in patients with end-stage renal disease?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve is superior for immediate and long-term survival in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing a valve replacement. Altogether more than 150 papers were found using the reported search; of which, eight represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. There were no randomized controlled trials addressing the question. There was one systematic review and meta-analysis. All the other evidence was in the form of retrospective studies. The papers show that there is no significant difference in the results and survival between patients receiving a mechanical and those receiving a bioprosthetic valve. This was seen in the meta-analysis as well as the larger series of patients who underwent valve replacement. Bleeding complications were more common with mechanical valves. We conclude that the choice of valve for patients with ESRD should be determined by age, level of activity and patient choice. Due to the limited life expectancy of these patients, bioprosthetic valves should be considered, especially since there is no evidence of early degeneration of tissue valves in this subgroup of patients.     

Necessity of permanent anticoagulant therapy for isolated mitral valve replacement with bioprosthetic heart valve to prevent the postoperative thromboembolic complications

One hundred fifty four patients underwent isolated mitral valve replacement with bioprosthetic heart valve at Hyogo Medical College Hospital from November 1973 to December 1998. A porcine bioprosthetic valve was replaced in 82 patients (Hancock 43, Carpentier-Edwards 26, Hancock II 13) and pericardial bioprosthetic valve in 72 patients (Ionescue-Shiley 39, Carpentier-Edwards 33) with a mean follow-up of 1,410 patients-years. Their thromboembolism rates were also analyzed in linear and actuarial term over the 15-year period. The incidence of thromboembolism rate was 2.5%/pt.yr. Thromboembolic free rates for patients with anticoagulant therapy were significantly decreased for patients without therapy. Thromboembolic free rates for patients with atrial fibliration were also were significantly decreased for patients with sinus rhythm because the patients with sinus rhythm were not on anticoagulant therapy. In conclusion, it is necessary for the all patients to be on anticoagulant therapy after mitral valve replacement with bioprosthetic valves, even though patients with sinus rhythm.     

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).     

Long-term outcomes of aortic root operations in the United States among Medicare beneficiaries

ObjectiveThe best method of aortic root repair in older patients remains unknown given a lack of comparative effectiveness of long-term outcomes data. The objective of this study was to compare long-term outcomes of different surgical approaches for aortic root repair in Medicare patients using The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database-Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–linked data.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was performed by querying the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database for patients aged 65 years or more who underwent elective aortic root repair with or without aortic valve replacement. Primary long-term end points were mortality, any stroke, and aortic valve reintervention. Short-term outcomes and long-term survival were compared among each root repair strategy. Additional risk factors for mortality after aortic root repair were assessed with a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsA total of 4173 patients aged 65 years or more underwent elective aortic root repair. Patients were stratified by operative strategy: mechanical Bentall, stented bioprosthetic Bentall, stentless bioprosthetic Bentall, or valve-sparing root replacement. Mean follow-up was 5.0 (±4.6) years. Relative to mechanical Bentall, stented bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80; confidence interval, 0.66-0.97) and stentless bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; confidence interval, 0.59-0.84) were associated with better long-term survival. In addition, stentless bioprosthetic Bentall (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.64; confidence interval, 0.47-0.80) and valve-sparing root replacement (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.51; confidence interval, 0.29-0.90) were associated with lower long-term risk of stroke. Aortic valve reintervention risk was 2-fold higher after valve-sparing root replacement compared with other operative strategies.ConclusionsIn the Medicare population, there was poorer late survival and greater late stroke risk for patients undergoing mechanical Bentall and a higher rate of reintervention for valve-sparing root replacement. Bioprosthetic Bentall may be the procedure of choice in older patients undergoing aortic root repair, particularly in the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.     

Severe stenosis of bioprosthetic valve due to late valve thrombosis

The typical cause of bioprosthetic valve dysfunction over years is calcification of leaflets, pannus formation, or tears due to structural degeneration. Thrombosis is rare as the valves get endothelialized early on, and, hence, anticoagulation is not recommended beyond 6 months after valve replacement. While bioprosthetic valve thrombosis is unusual (0.03% to 0.34%/year), it can be associated with significant mortality and morbidity. Here, we present a case of a middle-aged man with history of bioprosthetic mitral valve who presented with syncopal episode and was referred to us for mitral valve replacement for tentative bioprosthetic valve degeneration and stenosis. However, preoperative work up revealed prosthetic valve thrombosis which was successfully treated with anticoagulation.     

Valve replacement in patients on chronic renal dialysis: implications for valve prosthesis selection

BACKGROUND: Reports are sparse describing heart valve replacement in patients with end-stage renal disease. This review assesses a 15-year experience and outcomes after valve replacement in patients on chronic preoperative renal dialysis. METHODS: A computerized database, hospital records, and telephone contact provided outcome data for patients on chronic dialysis undergoing valve replacement between March 22, 1985, and October 13, 2000, in two hospitals. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent 95 valve procedures (74 operations). Ages ranged from 23 years to 84 years (mean, 57 years). Fifty-five aortic, 30 mitral, and 3 tricuspid valve replacements and 7 valvuloplasties were performed. Six of the 74 procedures were reoperative valve replacements. In the 46 patients with reliable long-term (greater than 30 days) follow-up data, significant bleeding or stroke was documented in 17 of 34 patients with a mechanical valve and 1 of 12 patients with a bioprosthetic valve. Overall survival (including two operative deaths) was 72.8% at 3 months, 65.4% at 6 months, 60.5% at 1 year, 39.8% at 2 years, 28.5% at 3 years, and 15.9% at 6 years (Kaplan-Meier). Type of valve implanted did not influence early and late survival. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of patients on chronic dialysis, survival appears to justify valve replacement. However, the sixfold higher incidence of late bleeding or stroke in patients on dialysis with a mechanical valve requiring warfarin suggests that bioprosthetic valves are the valve substitute of choice in patients on chronic dialysis.     

Results of reoperation for primary tissue failure of porcine bioprostheses

Results of reoperation for primary tissue failure of porcine bioprostheses were evaluated in 574 patients discharged from the hospital from 1970 to 1981. A total of 413 had undergone isolated mitral valve replacement and 161 isolated aortic valve replacement. Through March, 1984, 88 patients (15%) had required reoperation: 59 had undergone mitral and 29, aortic valve replacement. Primary tissue failure was the main cause of bioprosthetic dysfunction; it occurred in 64 patients (46 mitral and 18 aortic) at a mean postoperative interval of 93 +/- 4 months (range 34 to 158). During the same period, 11 patients required reoperation for bioprosthetic endocarditis, 11 for paravalvular leak, and two for thrombosis. These patients are not included in this review. Reoperation for primary tissue failure was performed after a mean interval of 72 +/- 6 months (range 38 to 158) for patients with aortic bioprostheses and after 101 +/- 5 months (range 34 to 153) for those with mitral bioprostheses (p less than 0.05). Overall mortality at reoperation was 12.5%: 11% for the mitral group and 16% for the aortic group. In 62 patients (45 mitral and 17 aortic) primary tissue failure was caused by calcification of the cusps, associated with severe fibrous tissue overgrowth in seven. Bioprosthetic failure was caused by an intracuspal hematoma in one patient with mitral valve replacement and by lipid infiltration of the cusps in one patient with aortic valve replacement. Actuarial freedom from bioprosthetic primary tissue failure at 12 years is 61% +/- 5% for the mitral group and 69% +/- 7% for the aortic group. On the basis of our long-term follow-up of patients after mitral or aortic replacement with a porcine bioprosthesis, we conclude: primary tissue failure is the most frequent indication for reoperation in patients with a porcine bioprosthesis; calcification of the cusp tissue is the leading cause of primary tissue failure; reoperation for primary tissue failure may be a major concern, although mortality for elective cases is low; and the limited durability of porcine bioprostheses suggests their use be restricted to selected patients.     

Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement of Aortic Valve Endocarditis: Detroit Experience

Bioprosthetic valve replacement for aortic valve endocarditis was reviewed in 98 patients, 39 nonaddicts and 59 addicts, from the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit. Multivariate analysis was carried out, and the bioprosthetic valve is a reasonable valve replacement device for both native and prosthetic valve endocarditis.     

二尖瓣置换术后生物瓣瓣膜毁损的定义及再手术时机探讨

目的探讨二尖瓣置换术后生物瓣毁损的定义及再手术时机。方法对５５例患者施行牦牛心包瓣膜置换二尖瓣手术。术后随访至１９９３年９月，累积随访３７９．４患者／年，平均６．９年。结果瓣膜毁损１６例，轻度病例１年后仅１６．７％（２／１２）转变为重度；再手术５例，术后４例康复，１例死于呼吸衰竭。结论瓣膜毁损可分为轻度和重度。轻度为瓣膜钙化；重度指瓣膜穿孔或撕裂，瓣膜中度以上狭窄或返流。轻度毁损宜观察，重度毁损则应及时手术。     

A rare case of quadruple valve surgery with bioprosthetic pulmonary valve replacement in an octogenarian for degenerative valvular disease: Technical aspects

Quadruple valve surgery represents a complex and rare surgical procedure, requiring a systematic and standardized approach. In this intervention, pulmonary valve replacement (PVR) in patients without pre‐existing congenital heart disease represents a challenge and no large data have been reported yet. We hereby report a case of bioprosthetic PVR in an octogenarian within a quadruple valve procedure, illustrating our preferred technique of PVR with bioprosthetic implantation and right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction.     

Is timing everything? Bioprosthetic valve fracture in valve-in-valve TAVR

We present a challenging case of early bioprosthetic valve degeneration following valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement and bioprosthetic valve fracture.