Treatment of endocarditis with valve replacement: the question of tissue versus mechanical prosthesis

BACKGROUND: It remains unknown whether there is any important clinical advantage to the use of either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve for patients with native or prosthetic valve endocarditis. METHODS: Between 1964 and 1995, 306 patients underwent valve replacement for left-sided native (209 patients) or prosthetic (97 patients) valve endocarditis. Mechanical valves were implanted in 65 patients, bioprostheses in 221 patients, and homografts in 20 patients. RESULTS: Operative mortality was 18+/-2% and was independent of replacement valve type (p > 0.74). Long-term survival was superior for patients with native valve endocarditis (44+/-5% at 20 years) compared with those with prosthetic valve endocarditis (16+/-7% at 20 years) (p < 0.003). Survival was independent of valve type (p > 0.27). The long-term freedom from reoperation for patients who received a biologic valve who were younger than 60 years of age was low (51+/-5% at 10 years, 19+/-6% at 15 years). For patients older than 60 years, however, freedom from reoperation with a biological valve (84+/-7% at 15 years) was similar to that for all patients with mechanical valves (74+/-9% at 15 years) (p > 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical valves are most suitable for younger patients with native valve endocarditis; however, tissue valves are acceptable for patients greater than 60 years of age with native or prosthetic valve infections and for selected younger patients with prosthetic valve infections because of their limited life expectancy.     

Bioprosthetic versus mechanical mitral valve replacements in patients with rheumatic heart disease

BackgroundRheumatic heart disease (RHD) remains a critical problem in developed countries. Few studies have compared the long-term outcomes of bioprosthetic valves and mechanical valves in patients with RHD who have received mitral valve (MV) replacement.MethodsPatients with RHD who received MV replacement with bioprosthetic or mechanical valves were identified between 2000 and 2013 from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. The primary late outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality and redo MV surgery. Propensity score matching at a 1:1 ratio was performed.ResultsWe identified 3638 patients with RHD who underwent MV replacement. Among those patients, 1075 (29.5%) and 2563 (70.5%) chose a bioprosthetic valve and mechanical valve, respectively. After matching, 788 patients were assigned to each group. No significant difference in the risk of in-hospital mortality was observed between groups (P = .920). Higher risks of all-cause mortality (10-year actuarial estimates: 50.6% vs 45.5%; hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.41; P = .040) and MV reoperation (10-year actuarial estimates: 8.9% vs 0.93%; subdistribution hazard ratio, 4.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.71-12.17; P <.01) were observed in the bioprosthetic valve group. Furthermore, the relative mortality benefit associated with mechanical valves was more apparent in younger patients and the beneficial effect persisted until approximately 65 years of age.ConclusionsIn the patients with RHD who underwent MV replacement, mechanical valves were associated with more favorable long-term outcomes in patients younger than the age of 65 years.     

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.     

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).     

Selection of prosthetic heart valves for adult patients by age

The use of bioprosthetic heart valves has dramatically increased over the last decade. In 2004, the ratio was 52% for mechanical and 48% for bioprosthetic valves in a survey by the Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery. This increase in the use of bioprosthetic valves is related to evidence demonstrating the durability of such valves over the last 20 years. The guidelines of the Japanese Circulation Society recommend selection of prosthetic heart valves by considering the patient's age. In patients who received a mechanical valve in previous cardiac surgery, selection of another mechanical valve is inevitable. The age of 65 years is when patients are separated into groups receiving either mechanical (<64 years) or bioprosthetic (> or =65 years) valves. However, the evidence that a bioprosthetic valve is better for patients in their 60s is somewhat questionable, particularly in Japanese with a long life expectancy. Anticoagulation with warfarin in patients with mechanical valves leads to a higher incidence of hemorrhagic complications compared with bioprosthetic valves, although the incidence of thromboembolism is the same. Thus patients with contraindications to warfarin or a low risk of thromboembolism who are more than 65 years old are reasonable candidates for a bioprosthetic valve. It is also recommended that women of childbearing age receive bioprosthetic valves after being informed of the possibility and risks of reoperation. In addition to the information in the guidelines and physicians' preference for valve selection, factors such as the patient's lifestyle, wishes, cardiac function, other complications, and longevity must always be considered when selecting a valve prosthesis.     

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)     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Revisiting prosthesis choice in mitral valve replacement in children: Durable alternatives to traditional bioprostheses

ObjectiveTo determine risk factors for re-replacement and death or transplant following mitral valve replacement (MVR) in childrenMethodsThis is a retrospective 26-year review of patients younger than 20 years of age undergoing MVR between 1992 and 2018 at single institution. Outcomes included freedom from re-MVR and transplant-free survival. Cox proportional hazards regression models assessed association between outcomes and potential risk factors.ResultsAt median age 4.2 years, 190 children underwent 290 MVR: 180 mechanical, 63 porcine, 13 pericardial, and 34 stented bovine jugular vein valves. Re-MVR occurred in 100 valves. Freedom from re-MVR at 5 and 10 years was 76% and 44%. Times to re-MVR were associated with prosthesis type (P < .001), with porcine and pericardial valves at greatest risk. Other risk factors for prosthetic failure included smaller prosthesis size and left ventricular hypoplasia. There were 9 transplants and 44 deaths. Transplant-free survival at 5 and 10 years was 81% and 76%. Prosthesis type was significantly associated with time to death/transplant in univariate analysis only (P = .021), with porcine at greater risk than mechanical. Independent risk factors for death/transplant included larger indexed geometric orifice area and longer bypass time.ConclusionsIn pediatric patients undergoing MVR, mechanical and stented bovine jugular vein valves were associated with increased durability compared with fixed-diameter bioprosthetic alternatives.     

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.     

Mitral valve replacement in the pediatric age group- a single institution experience

Background  Mitral valve replacement in pediatric patient is a difficult surgical task, with many intraoperative and post-operative considerations. We conducted this study to evaluate the indications and early results of mitral valve replacement in children. Methods  From January 2003 to July 2008, fifty-four children under the age of fifteen years underwent mitral valve replacement at our institution. All children received a mechanical bi-leaflet or tilting disc prosthetic valve. All of them underwent valve replacement on the basis of preoperative echocardiography and intraoperative assessment of valve pathology. Results  Preoperatively 65% of the children were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III and 35% of them were in NYHA class IV. The cause of mitral valve disease was chronic rheumatic valve disease in 97% of cases and congenital in 3% of the cases. In the rheumatic group 66% of them had severe mitral regurgitation as predominant lesion. The mean diameter of the implanted valve was 27.17mm. There was no hospital or 30 day mortality. The mean follow-up period was 3.6 years. One patient died after 2 years from a stuck valve. Two other patients required thrombolysis for stuck valves. 53 patients are doing well at last follow up. Conclusions  Mitral valve replacement in children is a safe alternative to valve repair when the morphology is not suitable for repair, with acceptable immediate and early outcomes.     

Risk of repeat mitral valve replacement for failed mitral valve prostheses

Background

Advances in tissue prosthetic valve design and manufacturing have stimulated renewed interest in the use of biological valves in younger patients. This approach, however, risks reoperation. We therefore reviewed our recent experience with repeat mitral valve replacement to better define its contemporary risks.

Methods

Using a computerized database, we identified and compared 106 patients undergoing repeat mitral valve replacement with 562 control patients undergoing primary mitral valve replacement between January 1993 and December 2000 at our institution.

Results

There were no significant differences between repeat and primary surgery groups with respect to age (mean 66 ± 12 vs 64 ± 13 years), gender distribution (women 65% vs 64%), preoperative functional class, ejection fraction, or active endocarditis (6.6% vs 3.4%). The indication for reoperation in the repeat group was structural dysfunction in 49 patients (46%), paravalvular leak in 21 patients (20%), nonstructural dysfunction in 11 patients (10%), and progression of other native valve disease in 8 patients (8%). Prior prostheses were mechanical in 46 patients (43%). Mean time to reoperation was 11.5 ± 7.1 years. There were 5 deaths out of 106 patients in the repeat group (4.7%) and there were 23 deaths out of 562 patients in the control group (4.1%) (p = NS). Multivariate analysis identified prior myocardial infarction (p = 0.014, odds ratio 2.9) and nonelective surgical status (p = 0.004, odds ratio 2.3) as significant predictors of operative mortality.

Conclusions

The risk of repeat mitral valve replacement was low suggesting that there should be less reluctance to recommend patients choose a bioprosthesis over a mechanical prosthesis. Given the expected durability of current designs, bioprosthetic use may be explored in younger patients without subjecting those individuals to excessive risk.     

Tricuspid valve replacement with the St. Jude Medical valve

A study was conducted on 20 patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) with the St. Jude Medical (SJM) valve. Isolated TVR was performed on 9 patients, and additional mitral, or mitral and aortic valve replacements were performed on 11 patients. Four patients (20%) died in the early postoperative period, but there were no deaths related to the SJM valve in the tricuspid position. The mean follow-up period of the 16 survivors was 74.4 months, and there have been no deaths during the follow-up period. The postoperative actuarial survival rate was 80%, 10 years after surgery. Three patients, representing 0.25%/patient-months, developed valve thrombosis, the valve thrombosis-free rate being 72.8%, 10 years after surgery, while entrapment of a leaflet by endothelial pannus was found in one patient, representing 0.08%/patient-months. Thus, the incidence of all prosthetic valve-related complications was 0.34%/patient-months, and the postoperative complication-free rate was 65.3%, 10 years after surgery. The medium-term follow-up study of TVR with the SJM valve revealed no prosthetic valve-related deaths and a relatively low incidence of prosthetic valve-related complications. However, as with other mechanical valves, valve thrombosis was a major risk posed by the SJM valve in the tricuspid position.     

Late incidence and determinants of stroke after aortic and mitral valve replacement

Background

Stroke is a devastating complication in patients with prosthetic valves, but characterization of its late occurrence from a large cohort is lacking.

Methods

Three thousand one hundred eighty-nine adult patients who underwent a total of 3,576 operations for left-heart valve replacement were managed with contemporary anticoagulation guidelines and prospectively followed in a dedicated clinic. Total follow-up was 20,096 patient years. Bootstrapped survival analysis was used to determine the impact of patient and valve related factors on the incidence of stroke.

Results

Most strokes were embolic. Linearized embolic stroke rates were 1.3% ± 0.2% per year for aortic bioprostheses, 1.4% ± 0.2% per year for aortic mechanical valves, 1.3% ± 0.3% per year for mitral bioprostheses, and 2.3% ± 0.4% per year for mitral mechanical valves (p = 0.002, vs other implant types). Age more than 75 years, female gender, and smoking were independent risk factors after aortic and mitral valve replacement. Atrial fibrillation, coronary disease, and tilting-disc mechanical prostheses were independent predictors of embolic stroke after aortic valve replacement. Preoperative left ventricular (LV) dysfunction was an independent risk factor in patients with mitral prostheses. Primary operative indication, diabetes, redo status, or the presence of two prosthetic valves were not associated with an increased hazard. The addition of acetyl salicylic or dipyridamole to warfarin anticoagulation did not significantly lower embolic stroke risk in patients with mechanical prostheses.

Conclusions

Approximately 20% of patients with valve prostheses have an embolic stroke by 15 years after valve replacement. Some risk factors such as the avoidance of smoking, mitral mechanical prostheses, aortic tilting-disc valves, and proceeding to mitral surgery before LV dysfunction occurs are potentially modifiable.