Durability and outcome of aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair versus double valve replacement

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate morbidity and mortality after double valve replacement (DVR) and aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair (AVR + MVP). METHODS: From 1977 to 2000, 379 patients underwent DVR (n = 299) or AVR + MVP (n = 80). Actuarial survival and freedom from reoperation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. Potential predictors of mortality and reoperation were entered into a Cox multiple regression model. Propensity score was introduced for the multivariable regression modeling for adjustment of a selection bias. RESULTS: Survival 15 years after surgery was similar between the groups (DVR, 81% +/- 3%; AVR + MVP, 79% +/- 7%; p = 0.44). Freedom from thromboembolic event at 15 years was similar between the groups (p = 0.25). Freedom from mitral valve reoperation at 15 years was significantly better for the DVR group (54% +/- 5%) as compared with the AVR + MVP group (15% +/- 6%; p = 0.0006), primarily due to progression of mitral valve pathology and early structural deterioration of bioprosthetic aortic valve used for patients with AVR + MVP. After AVR + MVP, freedom from mitral reoperation at 15 years was 63% +/- 16% for nonrheumatic heart diseases, and 5% +/- 5% for rheumatic disease (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Although both DVR and AVR + MVP provided excellent survival, DVR with mechanical valves should be the procedure of choice for the majority of patients because of lower incidence of valve failure and similar rate of thromboembolic complications compared with AVR + MVP. MVP should not be performed in patients with rheumatic disease because of higher incidence of late failure.     

Elderly valve replacement with bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses. Comparison by composites of complications

AIM: The goal of aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery in the elderly (= or >75 years) is to extend survival and minimize valve-related morbidity, mortality and reoperation. As the elderly population lives longer, those with implanted valves are at risk of suffering valve related complications. We hypothesize that bioprostheses are appropriate for the elderly. METHODS: The follow-up evaluation of 966 patients with valves (AVR, 666; mitral valve replacements [MVR], 226; multiple valve replacements [MR], 74) implanted between 1975 and 1999 was examined. There were 879 bioprotheses (BP) and 87 mechanical prostheses (MP). The mean age was 78.9+/-3.3 years (range 75-94.6 years). Concomitant coronary artery bypass was performed in AVR in 51.7%, MVR in 50.4% and MR in 28.4%. Valve type, valve lesion, coronary artery bypass (previous/concomitant), age and gender were considered as independent predictors of composites and survival. The total follow-up was 3905 patient-years. RESULTS: Early mortality was for AVR 9.6% (64), MVR 15.0% (34) and MR 25.7% (19). The late mortality was for AVR 8.8%, MVR 10.4% and MR 8.8%/patient-year. The only independent predictor of survival and valve-related mortality, morbidity and reoperation was age for survival in those with AVR, hazard ratio 1.15 [CL 1.03-1.27] p=0.0094). The BP reoperative rate was 0.5%/patient-year (reoperation was fatal in 6/15) of total, MP reoperative rate was 0% [reasons for reoperation structural valve deterioration (4), non-structural dysfunction (6), prosthetic valve endocarditis (5), reoperation fatality due to non-structural dysfunction (2), prosthetic valve endocarditis (4)]. Overall patient survival at 10 and 15 years, respectively, was 30.5+/-2.4% and 3.6+/-2.2% irrespective of valve position and type. Overall actual and actuarial freedom from valve-related morbidity at 15 years was 96.8+/-0.9% and 93.7+/-2.3%, respectively. Actual and actuarial overall freedom from valve-related mortality at 15 years was 84.3+/-2.4% and 58.4+/-0.9%, respectively. Overall actual and actuarial freedom from valve related reoperation at 15 years was 95.8+/-1.6% and 74.8+/-16.9%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: BP valves are further confirmed to be a good option for AVR in patients = or >75 years of age.     

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.     

Eight year experience with the CarboMedics bileaflet valvular prosthesis.

Two hundred and two patients (97 female and 105 male; mean age: 45. 5+/-9 years) received CarboMedics bileaflet valves during a period of eight years. Ninety-one patients received mitral, 72 aortic and 39 aortic+mitral valve prosthesis. Tricuspid plasty and coronary artery bypass surgery were the concomitant operations in 17 and 12 patients, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 24.7 months and the ratio was 91%. Overall operative mortality was 3.96% (8 patients); 2.78% for aortic valve replacement (AVR), 3.29% for mitral valve replacement (MVR) and 7.7% for double valve replacement (DVR). The late mortality rate was 2.89% for AVR, 2.2% for MVR and 8. 3% for DVR. The main cause of mortality was low cardiac output. The overall survival rate was 91.5% in 2 years. The actuarial freedom from thromboembolism in 2 years was 97% for AVR, 95% for MVR and 84% for DVR. No mortality due to heamorrhagic events was observed. CarboMedics prosthetic heart valves may be used satisfactorily with a low incidence of valve-related morbidity and mortality.     

Performance profile of the Starr-Edwards aortic cloth covered valve, track valve, and silastic ball valve.

OBJECTIVE: The Starr-Edwards aortic ball valve has passed 30 years of clinical follow-up. A detailed account of the long-term performance from a large series could thus give valuable guidance in managing patients who are still alive, depict the total remaining life-span after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for the average patient, and set a record yet to be matched by modern disc valves. METHODS: A detailed follow-up to a maximum of 31.1 years was performed for 717 patients who underwent their first AVR during 1965-1993 with a Starr-Edwards silastic ball valve (N = 355), a cloth covered valve (N = 164) or a track valve (N = 198) with a total of 7254 patient-years at risk. RESULTS: Patients who received a silastic ball valve were older (average 60 vs. 58 years), had more endocarditis (9%) and more secondary kidney failure (24%) preoperatively than the other patients. The three valve types did not differ as regards long-term survival or freedom from complications and only 15% of late deaths were related to the valve. For the silastic ball valve cumulative freedoms at 10 and 25 years were 59 and 20% from all deaths (crude survival), 85 and 80% from thromboembolism, 87 and 70% from bleeding, 98 and 94% from endocarditis, 96 and 95% from redo AVR and 68 and 51% from all valve related complications joined. There were no instances of structural failure apart from wear of the cloth covering the cage struts of the cloth covered valves. Incidences of haemolysis (0.10%/patient-year) and valve thrombosis (0.06%/patient-year) were low for the silastic ball valve. Analysis of relative survival for the silastic ball valve indicated excess mortality relative to a matched background population only during 1st and 13th postoperative year. Apart from heart related factors and age, independent incremental risk factors for mortality and the various complications included, not valve type, but valve size index (valve size divided by body surface area) < or = 13 mm/m2. CONCLUSIONS: The Starr-Edwards aortic ball valves, not least the currently available silastic ball valve, are durable through the remaining life time of the patients and able to secure near normal age and sex specific survival provided valve and patient size mismatch is avoided.     

Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a decision analysis

Background. In two large, randomized, clinical trials long-term survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) was similar for patients receiving tissue and mechanical aortic heart valve prostheses. Higher bleeding rates among patients with mechanical valves, who must receive permanent oral anticoagulation to prevent thromboembolism, were offset by higher reoperation rates for valve degeneration among patients with tissue valves. Because the average age of patients undergoing AVR and clinical practices have changed considerably since the randomized clinical trials were conducted, we performed a decision analysis to reassess the optimal valve type for patients undergoing AVR.

Methods. We used a Markov state-transition model to simulate the occurrence of valve-related events and life expectancy for patients undergoing AVR. Probabilities of clinical events and mortality were derived from the randomized clinical trials and large follow-up studies.

Results. Although the two valve types were associated with similar life expectancy in 60-year-old patients (mean age of patients in the randomized clinical trials), tissue valves were associated with greater life expectancy than mechanical valves (10.7 versus 11.1 years) in 70-year-old patients (currently mean age of AVR patients). For 70-year-old patients, the effects of major bleeding complications (24%) with mechanical valves substantially outweighed those of reoperation for valve failure (12%) with tissue valves at 12 years. Of the clinical practice changes assessed, the recommended valve type was most sensitive to changes in bleeding rates with anticoagulation. However, bleeding rates would have to be 68% lower than those reported in the European randomized clinical trial to affect the recommended valve type for 70-year-old patients. Reoperation rates would have to be five times higher, and mortality rates at reoperation would have to be four times higher to affect the recommended valve type for 70-year-old patients.

Conclusions. Although mechanical valves are preferred for AVR patients less than 60 years old, most patients currently undergoing AVR are elderly and would benefit more from tissue valves.     

Contemporary strategy for aortic valve stenosis in octogenarians

The number of patients with aortic stenosis (AS) has been increasing over recent decades with the longer life expectancy of the general population. AS is life-threatening without surgery and since many elderly patients have a variety of comorbid conditions, 30–40 % of those with severe AS have been denied surgery. However, recent data on standard aortic valve replacement (AVR) for octogenarians have revealed excellent outcomes, with 2.4–6.8 % early mortality and similar survival rates of octogenarians who undergo AVR vs. the general population. The reported incidences of postoperative stroke, dialysis, and pacemaker implantation were 2.4, 2.6, and 4.6 %, respectively. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the alternative therapy for patients who are not able to undergo standard AVR and it is developing rapidly. The placement of aortic transcatheter valves (PARTNER) trial showed acceptable early outcomes. The mortality rates from any cause were 3.4 % in the TAVR group and 6.5 % in the AVR group at 30 days, 24.2 and 26.8 % at 1 year, and 33.9 and 35.0 % at 2 years, respectively. Stroke rate was higher in the TAVR group than in the AVR group (3.4 vs. 1.9 %). Vascular complications and paravalvular leakage are frequent procedure-related complications, which must be addressed because they are associated with increased mortality.     

Intermediate-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement with bioprosthetic or mechanical valves in patients on hemodialysis

ObjectiveTo investigate the influence of choice of prosthesis (bioprosthetic valves or mechanical valves) on intermediate-term outcomes in patients on hemodialysis undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR).MethodsA multi-institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted in 18 Japanese centers. All adult patients on chronic hemodialysis who underwent AVR from 2008 and 2015 were included (n = 491). The early and late results were compared between groups. The hazard ratios were calculated using Cox regression and Fine–Gray models with adjustment for propensity score based on 41 confounders. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 ± 2.1 years (up to 8.3 years) with 98% completeness.ResultsThere were 323 patients who received a bioprosthetic valve (group B), and 168 patients who received a mechanical valve (group M). There was no significant difference for in-hospital death rate between groups (group B: 12.1%; group M: 8.9%; P = .29). The overall survival rate at 5 years after surgery was 39.3% in group B and 50.4% in group M (P = .42). Freedom from reoperation at 5 years was 97.1% in group B and 97.8% in group M (P = .88). On propensity-score adjusted analyses, there were no significant differences in overall survival between groups.ConclusionsThere were no significant differences in overall survival between bioprosthetic valves and mechanical valves in patients on hemodialysis undergoing AVR.     

2349例心脏瓣膜置换术早期死亡原因分析

目的 分析2349例心脏瓣膜置换术病人的死亡原因,以期进一步提高治疗水平.方法 1995年1月至2007年12月,2349例心脏瓣膜病病人接受人工心脏瓣膜置换手术.其中二尖瓣置换术(MVR)1333例,主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)271例,二尖瓣、主动脉瓣同期置换术(DVR)736例,三尖瓣置换术(TVR)9例.结果 早期病死率1995年至1999年6.81%,2000年至2004年3.22%,2005年至2007年2.82%.全组总早期病死率3.40%.结论 心脏瓣膜置换术早期死亡的原因主要是低心排血量综合征、肾功能衰竭、心律失常、肺部感染、脑血管意外、左室破裂和多器官系统功能衰竭等.     

Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement in Children and Adolescents After Previous Repair of Congenital Heart Disease

Due to improved outcome after surgery for congenital heart defects, children, adolescents, and grown‐ups with congenital heart defects become an increasing population. In order to evaluate operative risk and early outcome after mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in this population, we reviewed patients who underwent previous repair of congenital heart defects. Between July 2002 and November 2008, 15 (10 male and 5 female) consecutive patients (mean age 14.5 ± 10.5 years) underwent mechanical AVR. Hemodynamic indications for AVR were aortic stenosis in four (27%), aortic insufficiency in eight (53%), and mixed disease in three (20%) after previous repair of congenital heart defects. All patients had undergone one or more previous cardiovascular operations due to any congenital heart disease. Concomitant cardiac procedures were performed in all of them. In addition to AVR, in two patients, a mitral valve exchange was performed. One patient received a right ventricle‐pulmonary artery conduit replacement as concomitant procedure. The mean size of implanted valves was 23 mm (range 17–29 mm). There were neither early deaths nor late mortality until December 2008. Reoperations were necessary in five (33%) and included implantation of a permanent pacemaker due to complete atrioventricular block in two (15%), mitral valve replacement with a mechanical prosthesis due to moderate to severe mitral regurgitation in one (7%), aortocoronary bypass grafting due to stenosis of a coronary artery in one (7%), and in one (7%), a redo subaortic stenosis resection was performed because of a secondary subaortic stenosis. At the latest clinical evaluation, all patients were in good clinical condition without a pathological increased gradient across the aortic valve prosthesis or paravalvular leakage in echocardiography. Mechanical AVR has excellent results in patients after previous repair of congenital heart defects in childhood, even in combination with complex concomitant procedures. Previous operations do not significantly affect postoperative outcome.     

Coronary artery bypass grafting combined with aortic valve replacement in healthy octogenarians does not increase postoperative risk

OBJECTIVE: Critical aortic stenosis with or without coronary artery disease is increasingly common in octogenarians. Surgery is the treatment of choice, but indications and results of aortic valve replacement (AVR), particularly when combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are debated. We investigated whether the combined procedure of AVR and CABG increased postoperative risk compared with isolated AVR in otherwise healthy octogenarians. DESIGN: In the period 1994-1998, AVR was performed in 94 patients above 80 years, the majority in NYHA class III and IV. Combined AVR and CABG was performed in 52/94 patients. The patients were studied retrospectively by collecting data from hospital records and followed for 0-7 years. RESULTS: Mean age was 82 +/- 2.3 years, sex (male/female) 33/61, left ventricular ejection fraction 70 +/- 18%, transvalvular peak pressure gradient 63 +/- 20 mmHg and aortic valve area 0.5 +/- 0.2 cm(2). Early mortality (< 30 days) was 4/42 (9.5%) after AVR and 4/52 (7.6%) after AVR and CABG (p = NS between groups). Three-year survival was 33/42 (78.5%) after AVR and 42/52 (80.7%) after AVR and CABG (p = NS between groups). CONCLUSION: AVR with concomitant CABG in octogenarians with aortic stenosis who are otherwise healthy, may be performed without increased risk.     

Sorin Bicarbon bileaflet valve: a 10-year experience.

OBJECTIVE: To present a large 10 year experience of a collaborative evaluation of the Sorin Bicarbon (SB) mechanical prosthesis carried out in 14 centers in eight Western European countries. METHODS: Between 4/90 and 12/96, 2078 SB valves were implanted in 1875 patients aged 4-84 years (mean 58), 1108 males and 767 females. The valves inserted were 1026 aortic valve replacement (AVR), 656 mitral valve replacement (MVR) and 203 double valve replacement (DVR), additional procedures performed in 467 patients (282 coronary artery bypass grafting). RESULTS: Early mortality was 97 (5%), overall survival at 8 years was 71.8% AVR, 69.4% MVR, 81.4% DVR. Total late valve-related deaths were 55; overall freedom from valve-related death at 8 years was 95%. New York Heart Association (NYHA) status after surgery: 78% improved and 17% unchanged. Twenty-two valve thrombosis were observed, one fatal; overall freedom from thrombosis at 8 years was 98.5%. Embolism occurred in 95 patients, 77 cerebral events (16 deaths), overall freedom from embolism was 90.7% at 8 years. Six hemolytic events and 26 non-structural dysfunction (all periprosthetic leaks) were reported. Major bleeding occurred in 66, with mortality rate of 32% mainly when intracerebral. Overall freedom from bleeding was 90.8% at 8 years. Endocarditis occurred in 31 patients, 29% were fatal; overall freedom from endocarditis was 97.8% at 8 years. Reoperation was performed in 49 cases--periprosthetic leak 20, infective endocarditis 14, thrombosed valve 13 (and non-valve related-2). Mortality (early and late) occurred in three reoperated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is a durable and effective mechanical valve substitute with low morbidity and mortality and good functional results.     

Ten-year experience with aortic valve replacement in 482 patients 70 years of age or older: operative risk and long-term results

A retrospective analysis of an institutional experience with aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients 70 years of age or older during 1976 to 1987 was performed. The study was prompted in part by the current interest in palliative aortic valvoplasty, an interest based to a certain extent on the impression that AVR in the elderly has a high mortality. The mean age of the patients was 75.0 +/- 4.0 years (+/- the standard deviation) (range, 70 to 89 years). Eighty-three percent of patients received porcine valves and 17%, mechanical valves. Preoperatively 32% were in New York Heart Association class III, and 59% were in class IV. Operative mortality was 5.6% for elective isolated AVR for aortic stenosis (19% of all patients), 8.2% for all isolated AVR (38%), and 12.4% overall. Concomitant operative procedures were done in 62.0%; AVR with coronary artery bypass grafting (42%) had an operative mortality of 14.3%. Multivariate analysis showed significant predictors of operative mortality to be emergency operation (p less than 0.01), isolated aortic regurgitation (p = 0.01), and previous cardiac operation (p = 0.02). Follow-up (34 +/- 27 months) was 94% complete. Five-year survival from late cardiac-related death was 81.0%. The constant yearly hazard rate for late death for patients 70 years of age or older who underwent AVR was 5.42% per year, which is similar to the 5.77% per year rate calculated for age-matched and sex-matched controls. Five-year freedom from reoperation was 99%; from late thromboembolic complications, 91%; and from late anticoagulant-related complications, 94%. Freedom from all valve-related morbidity and mortality was 61% at 5 years.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with a Small Mechanical Prosthetic Valve

ABSTRACT Background: Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the only effective treatment for patients with aortic stenosis (AS), it is recognized that the use of small prosthetic valves due to a small aortic root often affects postoperative course after AVR. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of small prosthetic valves was a risk factor of AVR for AS. Methods: We compared various perioperative factors and operative outcomes between patients with a small mechanical prosthetic valve (small group) and patients with a large mechanical prosthetic valve (large group). Results: Early mortality was 0% in each group and the 5-year mortality was 25% in the small group and 10% in the large group. There were no significant differences in perioperative factors between the two groups. The small group patients were significantly older and smaller compared to the large group patients. The valve size was significantly correlated with age and BSA. Conclusions: The use of small mechanical prostheses was not a risk factor of AVR for AS when it was proportionate to the BSA even for elderly patients. AVR using a small mechanical prosthetic valve may be performed with good results in the short-and long-term.     

Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with a small mechanical prosthetic valve

BACKGROUND: Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the only effective treatment for patients with aortic stenosis (AS), it is recognized that the use of small prosthetic valves due to a small aortic root often affects postoperative course after AVR. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of small prosthetic valves was a risk factor of AVR for AS. METHODS: We compared various perioperative factors and operative outcomes between patients with a small mechanical prosthetic valve (small group) and patients with a large mechanical prosthetic valve (large group). RESULTS: Early mortality was 0% in each group and the 5-year mortality was 25% in the small group and 10% in the large group. There were no significant differences in perioperative factors between the two groups. The small group patients were significantly older and smaller compared to the large group patients. The valve size was significantly correlated with age and BSA. CONCLUSIONS: The use of small mechanical prostheses was not a risk factor of AVR for AS when it was proportionate to the BSA even for elderly patients. AVR using a small mechanical prosthetic valve may be performed with good results in the short- and long-term.     

Early and Long-Term Outcomes in Japanese Patients Aged 80 Years or Older Undergoing Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement

In this study, we investigated the early and long-term results of conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) in very old patients.Methods: Seventy-five patients with aortic stenosis underwent conventional AVR for patients aged 80 years.We examined early death and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE).Results: The operative mortality was 0% for isolated AVR and 19.2% for concomitant surgery. The postoperative survival rate and MACCE free-rate were no significant differences between the isolated AVR and the concomitant surgery. Univariate analysis confirmed that cardiac dysfunction, severe chronic kidney disease (CKD), hemodialysis, + coronary artery bypass grafting, and norepinephrine use were risk factor of early death. Univariate analysis confirmed that severe CKD, BNP >1000 pg/ml, aortic cross clamping time (ACCT) >180 min, and non-use carperitide and multivariate analysis confirmed that ACCT >180 min, and non-use carperitide were risk factor of MACCE.Conclusions: This study showed that the results of conventional AVR in very old patients were not satisfactory. However, the results obtained with isolated AVR were favorable with no operative deaths. The present study demonstrated that preoperative cardiac function, preoperative renal function, and operative factors have an important impact on early mortality and MACCE.     

Preservation of the Endothelium in Cardiovascular Surgery – Some Practical Suggestions – A review

Objective: Critical aortic stenosis with or without coronary artery disease is increasingly common in octogenarians. Surgery is the treatment of choice, but indications and results of aortic valve replacement (AVR), particularly when combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are debated. We investigated whether the combined procedure of AVR and CABG increased postoperative risk compared with isolated AVR in otherwise healthy octogenarians. Design: In the period 1994-1998, AVR was performed in 94 patients above 80 years, the majority in NYHA class III and IV. Combined AVR and CABG was performed in 52/94 patients. The patients were studied retrospectively by collecting data from hospital records and followed for 0-7 years. Results: Mean age was 82 &;#45 2.3 years, sex (male/female) 33/61, left ventricular ejection fraction 70 &;#45 18%, transvalvular peak pressure gradient 63 &;#45 20 mmHg and aortic valve area 0.5 &;#45 0.2 cm 2 . Early mortality (< 30 days) was 4/42 (9.5%) after AVR and 4/52 (7.6%) after AVR and CABG ( p = NS between groups). Three-year survival was 33/42 (78.5%) after AVR and 42/52 (80.7%) after AVR and CABG ( p = NS between groups). Conclusion: AVR with concomitant CABG in octogenarians with aortic stenosis who are otherwise healthy, may be performed without increased risk.     

Long-term experience with porcine aortic valve xenografts

Between 1971 and 1975, glutaraldehyde-preserved porcine aortic valve xenografts were employed for isolated replacement of the mitral valve (MVR) in 243 patients, replacement of the aortic valve (AVR) in 167 patients, and double valve replacement (AVR and MVR) in 51 patients. Postoperatively, long-term anticoagulation was not routinely given. Operative mortality rates for AVR, MVR, and double valve groups were 7.8, 6.0, and 11.8 per cent, respectively; the majority of early postoperative deaths were associated with concomitant coronary artery disease. No death was attributable to xenograft dysfunction. Follow-up of all patients was obtained. The total duration of follow-up for the MVR group was 347 patient-years, for the AVR GROUP 148 148 patient-years, and for double valve replacement 37 patient-years; maximum follow-up for these three groups was 4.4, 4.0, and 2.4 years, respectively. Actuarial analysis of postoperative survival rates at a common interval of 3 years showed 78 per cent for MVR patients, 91 per cent for AVR patients, and 80 per cent (projected) for patients with double valve replacement (85, 96, and 91 per cent for operative survivors, respectively. At this same interval 92 per cent of MVR patients, 99 per cent of AVR patients, and 93 per cent (projected) of patients with double valve replacement were free of thromboembolic episodes. Altogether, 12 of the total 512 valves implanted exhibited some evidence of dysfunction during the entire period of follow-up evaluation, but in only 2 instances (both mitral) was intrinsic pathological involvement of the xenograft tissue documented. Actuarial analysis of xenograft dysfunction at a common interval of 3 years after operation showed 95 per cent of MVR patients, 98 per cent of AVR patients, and 97 per cent (projected) of patients with double valve replacement to be free of this complication. These data support the use of glutaraldehyde-preserved porcine xenografts as superior bioprostheses that pose a low risk of thromboembolism without anticoagulation. The over-all durability of such valves, within the restriction of a maximum current follow-up interval of 4.4 years, appears comparable to that of currently available mechanical prostheses and justifies continued clinical use.     

Hematological complications with the St. Jude valve and reduced-dose Coumadin

We examined hematological complications in 415 patients having valve replacement with the St. Jude mechanical prosthesis (212, aortic valve replacement [AVR]; 159, mitral valve replacement [MVR]; and 44, AVR + MVR). There were 164 men and 251 women with a mean age of 59 years (range, 20 to 88 years). Preoperatively 386 patients were in New York Heart Association functional classes III and IV. There were 154 associated procedures (37%), the most common being myocardial revascularization. Overall hospital mortality was 7.5% (31/415), 7% after AVR, 8% after MVR, and 7% after AVR + MVR. All operative survivors were anticoagulated with Coumadin (crystalline warfarin sodium) to maintain the prothrombin time at 1.5 times control. During a mean follow-up of 21 months (range, 6 to 60 months), there were 29 late deaths (7.6%) and 5 patients (1.3%) lost to follow-up. No patient experienced structural valve degeneration. At 48 months, actuarial freedom from thromboembolism was 87% +/- 3% after AVR and 91% +/- 9% after MVR; from anticoagulation-related hemorrhage, 97% +/- 3% after AVR and 91% +/- 3% after MVR; and from hemolysis, 100% after AVR and 98% +/- 2% after MVR. Freedom from all valve-related morbidity at 4 years was 82% +/- 5% after AVR and 75% +/- 10% after MVR. Actuarial survival at 48 months was 80% +/- 4% after AVR and 65% +/- 7% after MVR.     

Surgical treatment of subaortic obstruction in adolescent and adults: long-term follow-up

Subaortic stenosis (SAS) is a wide spectrum of anatomical derangements ranging from a discrete fibrous membrane to tortuous fibrous tunnel with or without aortic annulus hypoplasia. We have reviewed 88 patients undergoing surgery for SAS over a 15-year period. There were 47 male and 41 female patients with a mean age of 19.8 +/- 10.6 years (range 11 to 39). Fifty-eight patients had discrete subaortic membrane, and 30 patients had diffuse tunnel subvalvular stenosis. The mean systolic pressure gradients were found to be 86.5 +/- 31.4 mmHg (range 48 to 145 mmHg). Ten patients had mild and 13 patients had moderate-to-severe aortic insufficiency (AI) preoperatively. Nine patients had bicuspid aortic valve. Forty patients (45.4%) had associated cardiac lesions. Isolated membranectomy was performed in six patients. Membranectomy associated with septal myectomy was done in 52 patients. Fifteen patients of them associated hypoplasia of the aortic orifice necessitated aortic valve replacement (AVR) using the Konno-Rastan procedure. Fifteen patients with tunnel SAS and normal aortic valves underwent a combined approach for valve sparing, a modified Konno procedure with patch septoplasty. Also eight patients required AVR because of the severity of AI and five patients aortic reconstruction procedures. Aortic commissurotomy was performed to relief of stenosis in four patients. There were three early deaths (3.4%) and one late death (1.1%) all after the Konno-Rastan procedure. Eight patients (9.1%) had permanent conduction abnormalities. Postoperative left ventricle-aorta gradient was significantly decreased at early postoperative period (p < 0.001) and ranged from 10 to 25 mmHg (mean 14.1 +/- 4.3). Fourteen patients (16.5%) were reoperated for recurrent obstruction or progression of AI. The mean reoperation interval was 4.4 +/- 1.7 years (range 2 to 8 years). Five-year reoperation-free survival was 88.0 +/- 3.6% and 12.5-year reoperation-free survival was 75.5 +/- 7.0%. Our results of aggressive surgical approach of subvalvular aortic stenosis produces relief of obstruction and frees the valve leaflets, significantly reducing associated AI with long-term survival and long-term adequate relief of left ventricular outflow tract obstruction.