Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valve Replacement in Patients with Infective Endocarditis

During the 5-year period, 1979-1984, at the Texas Heart Institute, 4,598 patients underwent cardiac valve replacement procedures of which 185 were for acute infective endocarditis. Staphylococcus and streptococcus accounted for 80% of the cases and congestive heart failure was a leading indication in 63%. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the recurrence of endocarditis dependent upon whether the patient had an Ionescu-Shiley bioprosthetic pericardial valve or a mechanical valve (St. Jude Medical). Actuarial freedom from both early and late reoperation was higher for prosthetic valves than bioprosthetic valve patients. We conclude that mechanical valves are the valves of choice in acute infective endocarditis which apparently is the results of less biologic tissue available for exposure to infection by the offending organisms.     

Surgical Treatment of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis with Homograft Aortic Valve Replacement

This article presents the University of Alabama experience with homograft aortic valve replacement for prosthetic valve endocarditis. Of 117 patients who have undergone homograft aortic valve replacement since 1981, there has been a total of 22 patients who underwent operation for endocarditis. Sixteen were isolated valve replacements, three combined with other procedures, and three were aortic root replacements. When placed in a setting of active endocarditis, there have been no reoperations for endocarditis of the homograft valve. Surgical techniques are presented for the freehand sewn homograft as well as aortic root replacement. Prosthetic valve endocarditis is a highly lethal event and when aortic valve replacement is advised in this setting, we believe a homograft aortic valve should be implanted whenever possible.     

A Continuous Suture Technique for Mechanical or Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement

A bstract A continuous suture technique for aortic valve replacement was developed early in our experience. This technique has proved to be simple, quick, effective, and to have several advantages over alternative techniques.     

Aortic Valve Replacement: A 9-Year Experience

Experience with aortic valve replacement over a 9-year period is reviewed. Hospital mortality was 5.0%, with an additional late mortality of 15.0% during a mean follow-up period of 4.3 years. There was a 7.5% mortality among the 93 patients who were operated on using direct coronary perfusion. There were no early deaths among the 48 patients operated on using cold cardioplegic arrest.Paravalvular leaks developed in 20 patients, and 9 had reoperation. There were no early deaths following elective reoperations for prosthetic valve dysfunction, but urgent reoperation was associated with a 40% mortality. Eighty percent of all patients are still alive at a maximum follow-up of 9 years. Eighty-six percent of the survivors who were in New York Heart Association Functional Class III or IV before operation are now in Class I or II. Hypothermic cardioplegic arrest was found to be preferable to coronary perfusion as a method of myocardial protection during aortic valve replacement. Patients with paravalvular leaks who have a history of left ventricular failure prior to aortic valve replacement should be considered candidates for early elective reoperation, owing to the significantly greater mortality associated with urgent reoperation.     

Allograft Aortic Root Replacement in Prosthetic Aortic Valve Endocarditis: A Review of 32 Patients

Background. This study was conducted to evaluate allograft aortic root replacement in the setting of complicated prosthetic valve endocarditis with extensive annular destruction.

Methods. From January 1990 through March 1996, 32 patients diagnosed with complicated prosthetic valve endocarditis underwent allograft root replacement. Mean age was 58.3 ± 13.2 years; 23 patients were men. Mean preoperative New York Heart Association functional class was 3.4. Staphylococcus epidermidis (50%) and Enterococcus faecalis (19%) were the predominant causative microorganisms. Annular abscesses were found in 26 patients (81%), aortic-mitral discontinuity in 14 patients (43%), and left ventricular-aortic discontinuity in 11 patients (34%). A cryopreserved allograft was used in 31 patients (97%) and a fresh antibiotic-treated allograft was used in 1 patient (3%). Mean aortic cross-clamp time was 150 ± 29 minutes. Mean duration of the postoperative antibiotic treatment was 38.5 ± 11.8 days.

Results. There were three operative deaths (9.4%); causes of death were multiorgan failure in 2 patients (6.2%) and low cardiac output in 1 patient (3.2%). Six patients (18%) had complete heart block (4 patients already before the operation), 3 patients (9.4%) had temporary respiratory insufficiency, and 1 patient (3.2%) needed temporary hemodialysis. Mean follow-up was 37.4 ± 22.4 months. Two late deaths occurred: 1 patient had recurrent endocarditis, leading to a false aneurysm, and died at reoperation; another patient died of lung cancer. Actuarial 5-year survival was 87.3% (70% confidence interval, 76.8% to 97.8%); actuarial 5-year freedom from recurrent endocarditis was 96.5% (70% confidence interval, 90.0% to 100%)

Conclusions. Allograft aortic root replacement is a valuable technique in the complex setting of prosthetic valve endocarditis with involvement of the periannular region. Mortality and morbidity are low.     

Mechanical Valve Replacement Versus Bioprosthetic Valve Replacement in the Tricuspid Valve Position

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and risk of tricuspid valve replacements and to compare bioprosthetic versus mechanical valves.

Methods

Between 1991 and 2009, 104 consecutive patients (71 women; mean age, 57 ± 10.8 years) with tricuspid valvular disease underwent mechanical TVR (mechanical group; n = 59) or bioprosthetic TVR (bioprosthesis group; n = 45). Follow‐up was complete in 97.1% (n = 101) with a median duration of 49.9 months (range 0–230 months).

Results

Hospital mortality after mechanical TVR and bioprosthetic TVR was not different on adjusted analysis by propensity score. Ten‐year actuarial survival after mechanical and bioprosthetic TVR was 83.9 ± 7.6% and 61.4 ± 9.1%, respectively (p = 0.004). However, there was also no significant difference in terms of adjusted analysis by propensity score (p = 0.084). No statistically significant difference was detected between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in regard to event‐free survival.

Conclusions

Mechanical TVR is not inferior to bioprosthetic TVR in terms of occurrence of valve‐related events, especially anticoagulation‐related complications. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12093 (J Card Surg 2013;28:212–217)