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.     

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.     

Selection of Prosthetic Valve and Evidence—Need for the Development of Japan’s Own Guidelines

Purpose: In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines were largely revised with regard to the selection of prosthetic valves. (1) A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients less than 60 years of age, (2) A bioprosthesis is reasonable in patients more than 70 years of age, and (3) Either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is reasonable in patients between 60 and 70 years of age.Japan faces the unprecedented population aging, and moreover, the average life expectancy is longer among the Japanese than the Westerners. In Japan, whether this choice is appropriate seems questionable.Methods: This time, with the revision of the AHA/ACC guidelines, it might be necessary to take into consideration the average life expectancy of Japanese people and revise the Japanese guidelines accordingly.Results: We should consider whether 60–70 years should be set as a gray zone regarding the age criteria for choosing biological valves, or if the age should be set higher relative to that specified in the western guidelines, given the longer Japanese life expectancy.Conclusion: We believe that the development of unique, Japanese guidelines for the selection of prosthetic valves will allow us to provide appropriate selection and treatment for each patient.     

Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients.

OBJECTIVE: The current trend towards decreasing the age for selection of a tissue over a mechanical prosthesis has led to a dilemma for patients aged 50-65 years. This cohort study examines the long-term outcomes of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves in middle-aged patients. METHODS: Patients (N = 659) aged between 50 and 65 years who had first-time aortic valve replacement (AVR) and/or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with contemporary prostheses were followed prospectively after surgery. The total follow-up was 3,402 patient-years (mean 5.1 +/- 4.1 years; maximum 18.3 years). Outcomes were examined with multivariate actuarial methods. A composite outcome of major adverse prosthesis-related events (MAPE) was defined as the occurrence of reoperation, endocarditis, major bleeding, or thromboembolism. RESULTS: Ten-year survival was 73.2 +/- 4.2% after mechanical AVR, 75.1 +/- 12.6% after bioprosthetic AVR, 74.1 +/- 4.6% after mechanical MVR, and 77.9 +/- 7.4% after bioprosthetic MVR (P=NS). Ten-year reoperation rates were 35.4% and 21.3% with aortic and mitral bioprostheses, respectively. Major bleeding occurred more often following mechanical MVR (hazard ratio [HR]: 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2, 9.0; P = 0.022), and the incidence of any thromboembolic event was more common after mechanical MVR (HR: 4.7; CI 1.4, 13.3; P = 0.01). Overall freedom from MAPE at 10 years was 70.2 +/- 4.1% for mechanical AVR patients, 41.0+/-30.3% for bioprosthetic AVR patients, 53.3 +/- 8.8% for mechanical MVR patients, and 61.2 +/- 9.2% for bioprosthetic MVR patients. Although a trend existed towards more MAPE amongst middle-age patients with tissue valves, multivariate analysis did not identify the presence of a bioprosthesis as an independent risk factor for MAPE (HR: 1.3; CI 0.9, 2.0; P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: In middle-aged patients, MAPE may occur more often in patients with bioprosthetic valves, but definitive conclusions necessitate the accumulation of additional follow-up. At present, these data do not support lowering the usual cutoff for implantation of a tissue valve below the age of 65.     

Thrombotic and bleeding complications of prosthetic heart valves

A review of articles published since 1979 indicates that thrombotic and bleeding complications account for about 50% of valve-related complications in patients with bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves and for approximately 75% of the complications in patients with mechanical valves. Although compromised by lack of standard definitions and by variability in reporting and follow-up, the data suggest that the linearized rate of both thrombotic and bleeding complications in patients with aortic bioprostheses is approximately half that for aortic mechanical prostheses (2% versus 4%), but is approximately equal for both bioprostheses and mechanical valves in the mitral position (approximately 4%), and for mechanical and bioprosthetic aortic and mitral valves in combination. However, linearized rates for fatal thrombotic and bleeding events are two to four times higher in patients with mechanical prostheses. The adequacy of warfarin anticoagulation is the most important factor affecting thrombotic and bleeding complications in patients with mechanical valves and over shadows the dubious importance of other phenomena such as atrial fibrillation and left atrial thrombus. Short-term warfarin anticoagulation or the use of long-term platelet inhibitors, or both, do not appear to reduce the incidence of thrombotic complications in patients with aortic bioprostheses but increase bleeding. For mitral bioprostheses, the postoperative use of warfarin for three months or aspirin indefinitely is as effective in preventing thromboembolism as long-term warfarin. Acute prosthetic valve endocarditis is associated with a 13 to 40% incidence of thrombotic complications. Likewise, the recurrence rate of cerebral emboli is high (20-30%) in patients with prosthetic valves who are not anticoagulated. Bioprostheses are strongly preferred for women who wish to bear children; fetal wastage occurs in 25 to 30% of pregnant women with mechanical heart valves who receive either warfarin or heparin, or a combination of the two. Heparin, however, greatly increases the risk of maternal bleeding. In children, the efficacy of platelet inhibitors without warfarin anticoagulation is unproven; nearly all serious strokes occur when warfarin is omitted; and permanent disability from warfarin-related bleeding is rare. All prosthetic cardiac valves initiate coagulation and affect the dynamic equilibrium between activated procoagulants and endogenous anticoagulants. Warfarin is the only available oral exogenous anticoagulant.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)     

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.     

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.     

Aortic valve replacement in patients age 70 years and older: early and late results

This retrospective analysis was performed to determine the early and late outcome in patients 70 years and older undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). From October 1994 to May 2001, 49 patients (24 men and 25 women, age 70 to 88 years [mean 74 +/- 4.6 years]) underwent primary AVR with or without concomitant procedures. Twenty-one received mechanical valves and 28 bioprostheses. Age was different between both groups: 72 +/- 2.3 years (mechanical) and 76 +/- 5.1 years (bioprosthetic) (p = 0.0005). Aortic stenosis was present in 25 patients (51%). Follow-up was 100% complete at a mean follow-up of 2.9 years (range 0.3-6.5 years). Overall hospital mortality was 4.1% (2/49). There were no postoperative complications in 24% of patients. Postoperative hospital stay or hospital survival was 27 +/- 13 days. Survival at 3 and 5 years was 89 +/- 5% and 80 +/- 7%, respectively. Three late deaths were due to noncardiac causes and 1 each had a cardiac or valve-related cause (thromboembolism). Other valve-related complications such as anticoagulant-related hemorrhage, perivalvular leak, endocarditis, prosthetic valve failure, and reoperation were not noted in any of the 49 patients. The actuarial survival curve was similar in each group of bioprosthetic versus mechanical and septuagenarians versus octogenarians. Under the selection criteria for AVR currently applied in our hospital, geriatric patients showed a satisfactory early outcome and medium-term survival benefit.     

Antithrombotic therapy following bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement.

The life expectancy of the general population is increasing. This has meant that more elderly patients are requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR). The choice of valve replacement and its durability are important. Bioprosthetic (tissue) heart valves were introduced into clinical use in the 1960s and were developed primarily to reduce the complications associated with thromboembolism (TE) and the need for lifelong oral anticoagulation, due to their low thrombogenicity compared to mechanical prostheses. This makes them suitable for use in elderly patients (aged>65 years) and in others where the risks of anticoagulation are higher or anticoagulation is contraindicated. There is thought to be a higher risk of TE for up to 90 days following bioprosthetic AVR. Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease published by the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) all recommend the use of an anticoagulation regimen for the first 3 months following bioprosthetic AVR. However, there is division of opinion and practice, despite these recommendations, and more recent studies have not supported the evidence for these guidelines. In this article, we review the literature on the use of anticoagulation in the first 90 days following bioprosthetic AVR.     

Prosthetic replacement of tricuspid valve: bioprosthetic or mechanical

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve replacement is one of the most challenging operations in cardiac surgery. Selection of the suitable prosthesis is still debatable. METHODS: In our institution, between January 1980 and December 2000, 129 tricuspid valve replacements were performed in 122 patients (14.7%). Bioprosthetic valves were used in 32 patients, whereas 97 patients had mechanical valve implantation. Twenty-two percent of replacements were done on men. Mean age was 35.27+/-11.56 years. In all patients, initially an annuloplasty technique was tried. Tricuspid valve replacement was performed when annuloplasty was not sufficient. In most of the cases, tricuspid valve interventions were done under cardiopulmonary bypass and on a beating heart. RESULTS: Early mortality was 24.5%. Patients were followed for 2 to 228 months. Seven patients underwent reoperation because of tricuspid valve dysfunction (7.6%). Nine patients died during the follow-up period. Late mortality was 9.7%. Actuarial estimates of survival in 20 years of follow-up for all tricuspid prosthetic valves, mechanical valves, and bioprosthetic valves were 65.1%+/-9.3%, 68.3%+/-10.6%, and 54.8%+/-12.1%, respectively. For the bioprosthetic valve group, freedom from structural valve degeneration was 90%+/-5.5%; for the mechanical valve group, freedom from deterioration, endocarditis, and leakage was 97.8%+/-4.2%, and freedom from thromboembolism was 92.6%+/-6.9%. CONCLUSIONS: We found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of early mortality, re-replacement, and midterm mortality (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, we recommend low profile modern bileaflet mechanical valves for prosthetic replacement of the tricuspid valve, due to their favorable hemodynamic characteristics and durability.     

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.     

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.     

Selection of the prosthesis for aortic valve replacement: mechanical or bio?

To clarify the effect of the valve selection on the patients' prognosis, long-term outcome of the patients undergone isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the mechanical or bioprosthetic valve in our institution were investigated. In protocol 1, patients of all ages with isolated AVR (n = 472, composed of 166 who received a bioprosthesic valve [group B] and 306 who received a mechanical valve [Group MI) between 1975 and 2004 were investigated. In protocol 2, primary AVR patients aged 50-65 years (n = 184, composed of 47 in group B and 137 in group M) were compared. There were no significant differences in freedom from cardiac death, freedom from bleeding, and freedom from endocarditis in Protocols 1 and 2. Significantly fewer redo AVRs were required in group M in both protocols 1 and 2. However, group M was significantly worse in terms of freedom from thromboembolism in protocol 2. As a result, group M was superior to group B in freedom from valve-related events when redo AVR included. When redo AVR was excluded, there was no difference between the two groups in freedom from valve-related events in both protocols 1 and 2. There may thus be an advantage in selecting bioprosthetic valves in young adult patients who required AVR if they accepts the possibility of redo AVR in future.     

Ventricular assist device in patients with prosthetic heart valves

Ventricular assist device (VAD) support inpatients with a prosthetic heart valve had previously been considered a relative contraindication due to an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. We report our clinical experience of VAD implantation in patients with prosthetic heart valves, including both mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. The clinical records of 133 consecutive patients who underwent VAD implantation at a single institution from January 2002 through June 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Six of these patients had a prosthetic valve in place at the time of device implantation. Patient demographics,operative characteristics, and postoperative complications were reviewed.Of the six patients,four were male.The mean age was 57.8 years (range 35–66 years). The various prosthetic cardiac valves included a mechanical aortic valve (n = 2), a bioprosthetic aortic valve (n = 3), and a mechanical mitral valve (n = 1).The indications for VAD support included bridge to transplantation (n = 2), bridge to recovery (n = 1), and postcardiotomy ventricular failure(n = 3). Three patients underwent left ventricular assist device placement and three received a right ventricular assist device. Postoperatively, standard anticoagulation management began with a heparin infusion (if possible)followed by oral anticoagulation.The 30-day mortality was50% (3/6). The mean duration of support among survivors was 194.3 days (range 7–369 days) compared with 16.0 days(range 4–29 days) for nonsurvivors. Of the three survivors,two were successfully bridged to heart transplantation and one recovered native ventricular function.Among the three nonsurvivors,acute renal failure developed in each case, and two developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. This study suggests that VAD placement in patients with a prosthethic heart valve, either mechanical or bioprosthetic,appears to be a reasonable option.     

Long-term results of valve replacement in the right side of the heart in congenital heart disease--comparative study of bioprosthetic valve and mechanical valve

Valve replacements in the right side of the heart (TVR and PVR) were done on 16 patients with congenital heart disease, mainly tetralogy of Fallot and Ebstein anomaly. Including reoperations, 19 operations were performed on them and 20 artificial valves were inserted. Ten mechanical valves (7 St. Jude Medical valves, 3 Starr-Edwards valves) and 10 bioprosthetic valves (7 Carpentier-Edwards valves, 3 Ionescu-Shiley valves) were used. Age at valve replacement ranged from 9 to 52 years (mean 23.0 years), and the follow-up period was 1.28-19.8 years (mean 5.7 years). Including 2 sudden deaths, late death occurred in 4 patients, on all of whom mechanical valve replacements were done at the primary operation. Five-year survival rate of all patients was 76.4 +/- 12.1%, and 10-year survival rate was 63.6 +/- 15.4%. All the patients who received bioprosthesis at the primary operation survived at the time of this follow-up study. On the contrary, long-term results of mechanical valve was unsatisfactory with the 5-year survival of 62.5 +/- 17.1%. In spite of anti-coagulation therapy with warfarin, three patients with mechanical valve complicated thrombotic valves, which necessitated re-operations. Calcified bioprosthetic valve occurred in one patient with I-S valve 8.5 years after the implantation. Five-year complication-free rate was 87.5 +/- 11.7% for bioprosthesis, whereas it was 50.0 +/- 15.8% for mechanical valve (p less than 0.056). It is concluded that the bioprosthesis is the first choice for the valve replacement in the right side of the heart in congenital heart disease.     

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.     

Long-term results of porcine bioprosthetic heterograft; a 13-years' experience

One hundred and ninety-four patients underwent valve replacements with the glutaraldehyde-preserved porcine bioprostheses (133 Hancock valves, 39 Angell-Shiley valves, 22 Carpentier-Edwards valves and 3 other valves) from 1974 through 1979. There were 105 women and 89 men, whose age ranged 18 to 62 (mean 38.8) years. One hundred and eighty-two patients had mitral bioprosthetic valve replacement (BVR)s, of which 52 had combined aortic mechanical valve replacements, 8 had aortic BVR's, 3 had tricuspid BVR's and 3 had multi-BVR's. Operative mortality was 10.8%. Only one patient was lost to follow-up. Cumulative duration of follow-up is 1421 patient-years. Linearized rate of anticoagulant related hemorrhage, thromboembolism (TE), prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), primary tissue failure (PTF) and valve dysfunction (VD) were 0.07, 1.62, 0.49, 2.74 and 3.66% per patient-year. Actuarial freedom from TE, PVE, PTF and VD were 87.0 +/- 2.7%, 95.6 +/- 1.5%, 65.2 +/- 4.9% and 56.9 +/- 5.6% at 13 years. Actuarial survival rate was 67.4 +/- 4.0% at 13 years. Long term follow-up after valve replacement with porcine bioprosthetic valve confirms low thrombogenicity. But primary tissue failure was the chief cause of valve dysfunction and represent a major problem. At this time, we are going to use porcine bioprosthetic valve in the selected patients, that is in the situations in which anticoagulation is contraindicated.     

Age-related complications and optimal choice of artificial heart valves in elderly patients

The use of bioprosthetic heart valves in elderly patients is presently advocated by many since implanting mechanical valves are considered to result in unacceptable rates of thromboembolism and bleeding. However the somewhat limited durability of bioprostheses has to be acknowledged since a group of elderly patients will eventually require a reoperation due to tissue failure. We have evaluated our policy to implant mechanical heart valve prostheses even in elderly patients based on the conception that we believe that anticoagulation in this group of patients can be handled with a low rate of complications.     

The porcine bioprosthetic heart valve: experience at 15 years

The porcine bioprosthetic valve has been in use at Henry Ford Hospital since 1971. In this review, 980 patients with 1,081 porcine bioprosthetic valves were examined from 1 month to 16.4 years after implantation with a 99% complete follow-up. Patient survival was 59% +/- 2.2% (+/- standard error of the mean) at 10 years and 38% +/- 4.0% at 15 years. Factors associated with decreased survival after hospital discharge were age greater than 35 years and New York Heart Association functional class IV. Freedom from thromboembolism was 92% +/- 1.2% at 10 years and 89% +/- 3.2% at 15 years. Freedom from endocarditis was 93% +/- 1.2% at 10 years and 92% +/- 1.3% at 15 years. Freedom from structural valve degeneration for all valves was 71% +/- 2.6% at 10 years and 31% +/- 5.6% at 15 years. Factors associated with increased risk of structural valve degeneration were age younger than 35 years, female sex, and preoperative cardiac index greater than 2 L/min/m2. Among a total of 172 patients undergoing removal of a degenerated valve, mortality was 12.5%, and significant risk factors for death at reoperation were emergency operation and functional class IV. Experience with the porcine bioprosthetic valve after 15 years suggests that its use be confined to older patients or patients with a contraindication of anticoagulation.     

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.