Effects of ascending aorta replacement on aortic root dilatation.

OBJECTIVE: Because of an increase of aortic root wall stress, prosthetic replacement of the ascending aorta might be a risk factor for the progressive increase of the aortic root dimension. Aim of the present study was to evaluate the aortic root diameter change and the progression of aortic valve regurgitation late after ascending aorta replacement for different ethiology. METHODS: Sixty-three late survivors after supracoronary ascending aortic replacement were evaluated. Forty-one patients were operated on for acute aortic dissecting aneurysm (group I) and 22 for chronic atherosclerotic non-dissecting aneurysm (group II). Aortic root diameter and aortic valve regurgitation were assessed echocardiografically after a mean follow-up of 63+/-31 months and were compared with those early after surgery. RESULTS: Seven patients of group I (17%) needed reoperation for aortic root dilatation or dissection. Twenty-five percent of the patients (15 of group I and 1 of group II) showed at least a 10% increase in aortic root diameter at follow-up (46.8+/-6.1 vs. 38.1+/-6.1mm, P<0.0001). Aortic root diameter increased almost exclusively in patients operated on for acute dissecting aneurysm. A significant worsening of aortic valve insufficiency with time was evident only in patients operated on for acute dissecting aneurysm with an higher incidence in those with progressive root dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: Both the increase of aortic root diameter and the progressive worsening of aortic valve insufficiency seem to justify a more aggressive treatment of the aortic root at the time of surgery for acute aortic dissecting aneurysm but not for chronic atherosclerotic non-dissecting aneurysms.     

Replacement of the aortic root for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis: prosthetic composite versus aortic allograft root replacement

OBJECTIVE: Aortic root replacement for prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis with accompanying destruction of the aortic root is a well-established surgical intervention. However, there is still no consensus whether prosthetic material or allogeneic material should be used. Here we report on our experience with prosthetic composite and aortic allograft root replacement in such patients during a 10-year interval. METHODS: From 1991 through 2001, 29 patients with prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis combined with aortic root destruction underwent reoperation at our institution. Sixteen patients received aortic root replacement with a cryopreserved aortic root allograft (group A) and 13 with a prosthetic composite graft (group B). The interval between the initial operation and reoperation was 29 months (range, 5-168 months) in group A and 55 months (range, 7-248 months) in group B. RESULTS: Hospital mortality was 18.5% (n = 5 patients, 3 in group A and 2 in group B). Median follow-up was 21 months (range, 1-48 months) for group A and 34 months (range, 1-152 months) for group B (P >.2). Survival at 1 and 5 years was 81% +/- 10% and 81% +/- 10% in group A and 85% +/- 10% and 85% +/- 10% in group B, respectively. No patient underwent reoperation for recurrent prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that excellent long-term results can be achieved regardless of the material used for aortic root replacement in patients with prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis.     

Replacing the ascending aorta and aortic valve for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis: is using prosthetic material contraindicated?

BACKGROUND: The use of prosthetic material (rather than a homograft) for ascending aorta/aortic valve replacement (Bentall procedure) in cases of acute prosthetic valve endocarditis is controversial. We report favorable results using this technique almost exclusively (a homograft was used in only 3 patients with hematological problems) during a 12-year interval. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients (55 +/- 14 years; 22 male) underwent a Bentall procedure for acute prosthetic valve endocarditis between 1988 and 2000. Twenty-five patients had undergone previous aortic valve replacement (1 with concomitant mitral valve replacement, 4 with coronary artery bypass grafting), and 3 had had a previous Bentall operation. The median interval between initial surgery and reoperation was 13 months (range, 1 to 106). Sixty-eight percent of operations were urgent or emergencies. Ninety-three percent of patients had significant aortic regurgitation; complete annuloaortic dehiscence occurred in 71%, and in 57%, an abscess was found. Causative organisms were identified in 25 of 28 patients: Staphylococcus epidermidis (9), Staphylococcus aureus (7), Streptococcus viridans (6), Pseudomonas (2), and Legionella (1). RESULTS: Twenty-three patients had mechanical and 5 had biological valves implanted during the Bentall procedure. Hypothermic circulatory arrest was used in 64%. Hospital mortality was 11%: there was one intraoperative death, and two before discharge (one cardiac, one sepsis). Eighty-nine percent survived without stroke. During follow-up (median, 44.5 months; complete in 92%), 1 patient died of recurrent endocarditis at 4 months. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that prosthetic root replacement may be superior to use of a homograft for acute aortic prosthetic valve endocarditis, with only a 4% incidence of recurrent endocarditis and reoperation.     

Aortic and mitral valve replacement with reconstruction of the intervalvular fibrous body: an analysis of clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the late outcomes of reconstruction of the intervalvular fibrous body during aortic and mitral valve replacement. METHODS: Seventy-six consecutive patients underwent reconstruction of the intervalvular fibrous body with replacement of the mitral and aortic valves. There were 35 men and 41 women whose mean age was 58 +/- 12 years. Additional procedures were circumferential reconstruction of the mitral annulus in 27 patients, tricuspid valve repair in 21, coronary artery bypass in 15, and aortic root replacement in 4. Indications for the operation were active infective endocarditis with abscess in 15 patients, extensive calcification of the mitral annulus and interventricular fibrous body in 24, lack of fibrous tissue to secure a prosthetic valve in 17, and treatment or prevention of patient-prosthesis mismatch in 20. Fifty-five patients had undergone one or more previous valve operations, and 52 (68%) were in functional class IV. The mean follow-up was 47 +/- 47 months, and it was complete. RESULTS: There were 8 (10%) operative and 18 (24%) late deaths. The 10-year survival was 50% +/- 9%. There were 15 reoperations in 12 patients: 7 for prosthetic valve endocarditis (5 early, 2 late), 7 for patch or valve dehiscence (3 early, 4 late), and 1 for structural valve deterioration. All but 2 reoperations were re-reconstruction of the intervalvular fibrous body and double valve replacement. The 10-year freedom from reoperation was 73% +/- 7%. CONCLUSION: Reconstruction of the intervalvular fibrous body during double valve replacement is a technically challenging operation, but it is useful in patients with complex valve pathology for whom no alternative procedure is available.     

复杂性感染性心内膜炎的外科治疗

目的评价瓣周脓肿、心肌脓肿以及瓣膜严重毁损等复杂性感染性心内膜炎手术治疗的近、远期疗效.方法回顾性分析1988年12月至2002年6月手术治疗的复杂性心内膜炎患者57例临床资料,均为原发性心内膜炎,其中感染侵犯主动脉瓣25例、二尖瓣16例、二尖瓣和主动脉瓣16例.术中发现瓣叶严重毁损32例、主动脉瓣周脓肿19例、主动脉根部环形脓肿导致左心室-主动脉连接破坏4例、二尖瓣后瓣环脓肿11例、心肌脓肿6例、瓣膜赘生物形成55例.脓肿清除后遗留残腔采用间断褥式缝合6例、自体心包片修补19例、牛心包片修补6例、聚四氟乙烯膨体补片修补4例;施行以带瓣管道作升主动脉根部替换和左、右冠状动脉移植术4例,主动脉瓣替换术21例,二尖瓣替换术16例,主动脉瓣及二尖瓣双瓣替换术16例.结果早期死亡6例(11%),死亡主要原因为低心输出量综合征、人造心脏瓣膜性心内膜炎和多脏器功能衰竭.随访4个月至14年,平均(5.93±0.20)年.晚期死亡5例,晚期主要并发症为人造瓣膜性心内膜炎.术后1年心功能恢复NYHA分组Ⅰ～Ⅱ级占96%(44/46);5年再手术免除率为(84±3)%,5年实际生存率为(61±9)%.结论复杂性心内膜炎局部组织破坏较多,应限期手术或急症手术,清创后残腔的处理是影响手术本身能否成功以及术后近、远期效果的关键.     

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.     

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.     

Surgical management of acute aortic root endocarditis with viable homograft: 13-year experience.

OBJECTIVE: Cryopreserved homograft valves have been used for acute infective aortic root endocarditis with great success but it is compounded by its availability in all sizes. The long-term clinical results of geometric mismatched homografts are not well defined and addressed. METHODS: Over a 15-year period (April 1986-June 2001), 816 patients presented with active infective endocarditis. One hundred and eighty-two of the patients aged between 9 and 78 years (mean: 51.0 +/- 1.13 years) consisting of 142 males and 40 females received homograft aortic valves. One hundred and ten patients were in NYHA functional class III and 72 in class IV and in cardiogenic shock. Of the patients, 2.7% suffered from septic embolism. One hundred and twenty-four (68.1%) patients presented with periannular abscesses and 58 (31.9%) with no abscess while 107 native valve (NVE) and 75 prosthetic valve (PVE) endocarditis were diagnosed preoperatively by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and confirmed intraoperatively. Freehand subcoronary implantation (FSCI) was used in 106 patients and root replacement in 76 patients. RESULTS: The operative death was 8.5% and for patients in NYHA functional class IV and in cardiogenic shock was 14.5%. Late mortality rate was 7.9%. Patient survival after discharge from hospital at 1 year was 97% and at 10 years was 91%, respectively. Thirty-one (22.1%) patients underwent reoperation after 1.7 years (mean) with two deaths (6.4%). Early (< or = 60 days) and late reinfection rate was 2.7 and 3.6%, respectively. Freedom from reoperation for matched and undersized homografts at 10-13 years was 85 and 55%, respectively. The univariate model identified undersized homograft (P=0.002), FSCI (P=0.09) and reinfection (P=0.0001) as independent risk factors for developing early and late valve dysfunction resulting in reoperation and homograft explant. CONCLUSION: Early aggressive valve replacement with homograft for active infective aortic root endocarditis with periannular abscesses is more successful than delayed last resort surgery. Homografts exhibit excellent clinical performance and durability with a low rate of reinfection, if properly inserted. Undersized homograft is an incremental risk factor for early and late reoperation.     

Long-term fate of the aortic root and aortic valve after ascending aneurysm surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The authors determined in which patients tube graft replacement could be used. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Tube graft replacement of ascending aortic aneurysms requires no coronary anastomoses and preserves the native aortic valve, but aortic insufficiency or aortic root aneurysms may develop requiring reoperation. Use of Bentall or Cabrol composite valve graft procedures obviates these problems but requires prosthetic valve replacement and coronary reattachment, both of which are associated with complications. These two procedures have been applied increasingly but because of renewed interest in aortic valve preservation and reconstruction, the authors determined in which patients tube replacement could be used. METHODS: The authors analyzed the fate of 277 patients, mean age 49 +/- 14 years, operated on between 1953 and 1992 by techniques that preserved the aortic root. The most common pathology was atherosclerosis in 104 patients. Perioperative mortality since 1975 was 14%. RESULTS: Fifteen patients required reoperation on the ascending aorta or aortic root; ascending aneurysm reoperation (6 patients); aortic valve replacement (8 patients), and a combined procedure (1 patient). Of these 15 patients, 8 had Marfan's syndrome, 10 had dissections, and 5 had medial degeneration/necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: Simple tube graft replacement of the ascending aorta was a durable technique in patients without Marfan's syndrome or medial degeneration/necrosis and allowed preservation of the native aortic valve in many patients.     

Heart valve operations in patients with active infective endocarditis

Sixty-two consecutive patients underwent heart valve operation for active infective endocarditis. There were 42 men and 20 women whose mean age was 49 years (range, 21 to 79 years). The infection was in the aortic valve in 37 patients, the mitral valve in 18, the aortic and mitral valves in 5, and the tricuspid valve in 2. Twenty-four patients had prosthetic valve endocarditis. Staphylococcus and Streptococcus were responsible for 86% of the infections. Annular abscess was encountered in 33 patients. Complex valve procedures involving reconstruction of the left ventricular inflow or outflow tract or both were performed in 31 patients. There were three operative deaths (4.8%). Predictors of operative mortality were prosthetic valve endocarditis, preoperative shock, and annular abscess. Patients were followed for 1 month to 130 months (mean follow-up, 43 months). Only 1 patient required reoperation for persistent infection. There were ten late deaths. Most survivors (96%) are currently in New York Heart Association class I or II. The 5-year actuarial survival was 79% +/- 7%. These data demonstrate excellent results in patients with native valve endocarditis, and support the premise that patients with prosthetic valve endocarditis should have early surgical intervention.     

Patch closure of aortic annulus mycotic aneurysms

Twenty-three patients with bacterial endocarditis and mycotic aneurysms of the aortic annulus were treated between 1978 and 1985. There were 18 men and 5 women ranging from 24 to 72 years old. All patients had congestive heart failure and positive blood cultures as a complication of the endocarditis and were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Class III or IV. The aneurysm complicated late prosthetic valve endocarditis in 7 patients and native valve endocarditis in 16. The most common infecting organisms were streptococci (12 patients) and staphylococci (7 patients). The noncoronary sinus was the most frequent site for aneurysm formation. Following debridement of the abscess cavity, the orifice of the aneurysm was closed with a patch of Dacron in 20 patients and autologous pericardium in 3. A prosthetic valve (18 bioprosthetic and 5 mechanical) was secured to the noninfected portion of the native annulus and to the patch at the level of annulus. There were 3 deaths, 1 perioperative and 2 late, each without evidence of residual infection or aortic insufficiency. There are 20 late survivors (87%). After a mean follow-up of 1 year, all patients are in NYHA Functional Class I. Patch closure of mycotic aneurysms involving the aortic annulus permits aggressive debridement of the abscess cavity and affords closure of the orifice without tension. The prosthetic valve can be seated at the level of the native annulus, thus avoiding complicated reconstructive procedures of the aortic root and coronary arteries. This technique is an effective alternative in selected cases of mycotic aneurysms involving the aortic annulus.     

Aortic root replacement in patients with previous heart surgery

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to review the operative risk and outcomes of redo aortic root replacement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From July 1990 to December 2001, aortic root replacement was performed in 165 patients who had at least one previous cardiac operation. Their mean age was 49 +/- 16 years and 78% were men. Twenty-eight patients had a previous aortic root replacement. The principal indication for surgery was prosthetic aortic valve dysfunction. All the patients had a dilated, calcified, ruptured, or some other abnormality of the aortic root. The follow-up was complete and extended from 0 to 12.5 years, mean of 3.8 years. RESULTS: There were 12 operative (7%) and 20 late deaths (12%). The survival at 8 years was 68%+/- 6%. The principal cause of death was cardiovascular related. Age at increments of 5 years (risk ratio: 1.2; CI: 95%; 1.1 to 1.4) and preoperative New York Heart Association functional class IV (risk ratio: 2.2; CI: 95%: 1.1 to 4.7) were the only two independent predictors of death. Two patients had a stroke and died; two patients developed three episodes of prosthetic valve endocarditis and died. Three patients were reoperated on because of endocarditis in one, bioprosthetic valve failure in one, and dehiscence of a prosthetic mitral valve in one. The freedom from reoperation at 8 years was 93%+/- 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Redo aortic root replacement can be done with low operative mortality in elective patients and the risk increases in those who need emergent surgery and are older. The long-term results are satisfactory and similar to those for patients who have aortic root replacement for the first time.     

Results of aortic valve-sparing operations.

OBJECTIVE: To review the late results of valve-sparing operations in patients with aortic root aneurysm and in those with ascending aortic aneurysm and aortic insufficiency. METHODS: From May 1988 to June 2000, 120 patients with aortic root aneurysm and 68 with ascending aortic aneurysm and aortic insufficiency underwent aortic valve-sparing operations. Patients with aortic root aneurysm were younger, were predominantly male, and had less severe aortic insufficiency than patients with ascending aortic aneurysm, who were older and often had aneurysm of the transverse arch. Forty-eight patients with aortic root aneurysm had the Marfan syndrome. The prevalence of aortic dissection was similar in both groups. Reconstruction of the aortic root was performed by reimplanation of the aortic valve in 64 patients and by remodeling of the aortic root in 56. Patients with ascending aortic aneurysm and aortic insufficiency were treated by replacement of the ascending aorta with reduction in the diameter of the sinotubular junction. Approximately two thirds of the latter patients also required replacement of the transverse aortic arch. The mean follow-up was 35 +/- 31 months for patients with aortic root aneurysm and 26 +/- 23 months for those with ascending aortic aneurysm. RESULTS: There were 2 operative and 5 late deaths in patients with aortic root aneurysm and 1 operative and 9 late deaths in patients with ascending aortic aneurysm. The 5-year survival for patients with aortic root aneurysm was 88% +/- 4% and for patients with ascending aortic aneurysm, 68% +/- 12% (P =.01). Severe aortic insufficiency developed in 2 patients, and they required aortic valve reoperation. The 5-year freedom from aortic valve reoperation was 99% +/- 1% for patients with aortic root aneurysm and 97% +/- 4% for those with ascending aortic aneurysm. Seven patients had moderate aortic insufficiency at the latest echocardiographic study. The 5-year freedom from severe or moderate aortic insufficiency was 90% +/- 4% in patients who had aortic root aneurysm and 98% +/- 2% in those who had ascending aortic aneurysm. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve-sparing operations have provided excellent clinical outcomes and few valve-related complications. The function of the reconstructed aortic root remains unchanged in most patients during the first 5 years of follow-up.     

Aortic valve-sparing operations for aortic root aneurysm

The object of this report is to review the clinical outcomes of aortic valve-sparing operations in patients with aortic root aneurysm. From May 1988 to June 2000, 120 patients with aortic root aneurysm with or without aortic insufficiency underwent aortic valve-sparing operations. There were 83 men and 37 women whose mean age was 46 years (range 16 to 72 years). Forty-eight patients had the Marfan syndrome, and 22 had either acute or chronic type A aortic dissections. Reconstruction of the aortic root was performed using the technique of reimplanation of the aortic valve in 64 patients and the remodeling of the aortic root in 56. The mean follow-up was 35 months (range 2 to 145 months), and it was complete. Aortic valve function was assessed by echocardiography. There were 2 operative and 5 late deaths. The 10-year survival for patients with aortic root aneurysm was 88% +/- 4%. Two patients have required aortic root replacement: one on the first postoperative day because of severe aortic insufficiency and one paraplegic patient 12 years after surgery because of infective endocarditis with aortic root abscess. Both patients survived reoperation. The 10-year freedom from aortic root reoperation was 99% +/- 1%. Three patients suffered transient ischemic attacks. The 10-year freedom from thromboembolic events was 89% +/- 5%. Seven patients had moderate aortic insufficiency at the latest echocardiographic study. The 10-year freedom from severe or moderate aortic insufficiency was 83% +/- 8%. Aortic valve-sparing operations have provided excellent clinical outcomes and few valve-related complications. The function of the reconstructed aortic root remains unchanged in most patients during the first decade of follow-up.     

Redo aortic root surgery for failure of an aortic homograft is a major technical challenge

OBJECTIVE: Aortic homografts offer many advantages over prosthetic valves. However, homograft dysfunction due to degeneration or infection may lead to reoperation. Aortic valve replacement in patients who have undergone previous aortic root replacement with an aortic homograft remains a technical challenge. To assess reoperation events a retrospective review was conducted. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to October 2006, 20 consecutive patients (38.8+/-14.9 years old) underwent repeat surgery for aortic homograft failure. RESULTS: Reoperation was performed 7.2+/-3.5 years after implantation of the aortic homograft as a root. Indication was homograft degeneration (n=18 [90%]) and endocarditis (n=2 [10%]). In patients with major homograft wall calcifications or endocarditis, nine aortic root reconstructions were performed (Bentall procedure n=7; homograft implantation n=2). Each homograft was dissected with electrical cauterization and removed 'en-bloc' sparing the coronary buttons. In case of flexible homograft wall, stented prostheses (mechanical n=10, bioprosthesis n=1) were implanted along the homograft annulus. Additional procedures consisted of mitral valve replacements (n=8), tricuspid repairs (n=4), Konno procedure (n=1) and coronary bypass (n=5). Perioperative complications occurred in seven (35%) patients: sternal re-entry accident (n=2); reoperations for mediastinitis (n=1) or bleeding (n=2); renal insufficiency (n=1); total heart block (n=1). No association was found between operative procedures and postoperative complications (Fisher's exact test). Two patients (10%) died from multiorgan failure in the early postoperative period. In total, 94.4% of the survivors remained free from reoperation at 74 months. CONCLUSION: Reoperation on patients with an aortic homograft as a root presents a relatively high perioperative morbidity. The surgical strategy depends on the degree of homograft wall calcification.     

Surgical treatment of paravalvular abscess: long-term results.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the outcomes of surgery for active infective endocarditis with paravalvular abscess. METHODS: Paravalvular abscess was defined as infective necrosis of the valve annulus that required patch reconstruction before implanting a new valve. Of 383 patients with active infective endocarditis who underwent surgical treatment, 135 (35%) had paravalvular abscess. Patients' mean age was 51+/-16 years and 68% were men. The infected valve was native in 69 patients and prosthetic in 66. The abscess involved the aortic annulus in 73 patients, the mitral annulus in 27, the aortic and mitral annuluses in 33, and the aortic and tricuspid and/or pulmonary annuluses in 2. Surgery consisted of radical resection of the abscess, reconstruction of the annulus with patches and valve replacement. Mean follow-up was 6.2+/-5.2 years and complete. RESULTS: There were 21 (15.5%) operative deaths. Preoperative shock and abscess in the aortic and mitral annuluses were independent predictors of operative death. There were 34 (25%) late deaths. Survival at 15 years was 43+/-6% for all patients, 50+/-8% for native valve endocarditis and 35+/-9% for prosthetic (p=0.41). Age by increments of 5 years and recurrent endocarditis were independent predictors of late death. There were 16 episodes of recurrent endocarditis in 15 patients, and the freedom from recurrent endocarditis was 82+/-4% at 15 years. Fifteen reoperations were performed in 14 patients. Freedom from reoperation was 72+/-9% at 15 years. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for active endocarditis with paravalvular abscess was associated with high operative mortality, particularly in patients in shock and abscess of both mitral and aortic annuluses. Long-term survival was adversely affected by age and recurrent bouts of endocarditis.     

Immediate and long-term results of valve replacement for native and prosthetic valve endocarditis

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study was to compare current results of prosthetic valve replacement following acute infective native valve endocarditis (NVE) with that of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). Prosthetic valve replacement is often necessary for acute infective endocarditis. Although valve repair and homografts have been associated with excellent outcome, homograft availability and the importance of valvular destruction often dictate prosthetic valve replacement in patients with acute bacterial endocarditis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the experience with prosthetic valve replacement following acute NVE and PVE between 1988 and 1998 was performed at the Montreal Heart Institute. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (57 men and 20 women, mean age 48 +/- 16 years) with acute infective endocarditis underwent valve replacement. Fifty patients had NVE and 27 had PVE. Four patients (8%) with NVE died within 30 days of operation and there were no hospital deaths in patients with PVE. Survival at 1, 5, and 7 years averaged 80% +/- 6%, 76% +/- 6%, and 76% +/- 6% for NVE and 70% +/- 9%, 59% +/- 10%, and 55% +/- 10% for PVE, respectively (p = 0.15). Reoperation-free survival at 1, 5, and 7 years averaged 80% +/- 6%, 76% +/- 6%, and 76% +/- 6% for NVE and 45% +/- 10%, 40% +/- 10%, and 36% +/- 9% for PVE (p = 0.003). Five-year survival for NVE averaged 75% +/- 9% following aortic valve replacement and 79% +/- 9% following mitral valve replacement. Five-year survival for PVE averaged 66% +/- 12% following aortic valve replacement and 43% +/- 19% following mitral valve replacement (p = 0.75). Nine patients underwent reoperation during follow-up: indications were prosthesis infection in 4 patients (3 mitral, 1 aortic), dehiscence of mitral prosthesis in 3, and dehiscence of aortic prosthesis in 2. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic valve replacement for NVE resulted in good long-term patient survival with a minimal risk of reoperation compared with patients who underwent valve replacement for PVE. In patients with PVE, those who needed reoperation had recurrent endocarditis or noninfectious periprosthetic dehiscence.     

Survival and valve failure after aortic valve replacement.

A prospective evaluation of 412 consecutive patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement between January 1982 and December 1985 was performed in an attempt to identify the determinants of survival and valve failure. A variety of valves were inserted to permit a prospective evaluation of alternative valves including: Bj?rk-Shiley mechanical (n = 37), Ionescu-Shiley pericardial (n = 261), Hancock pericardial (n = 78), and Carpentier-Edwards porcine (n = 36). Thirteen patients died in the hospital (3.2%) and 47 patients died in the follow-up period producing an actuarial survival of 81% +/- 3% at 48 months. Survival was independently predicted by advancing age, preoperative New York Heart Association functional class, and the presence of endocarditis (p less than 0.05 by Cox regression analysis). The majority of patients were symptomatically improved (New York Heart Association class I or II: 21% preoperative, 88% postoperative). Freedom from structural valve dysfunction, prosthetic valve endocarditis, and reoperation for valve-related complications were 95% +/- 2%, 95% +/- 2%, and 92% +/- 2% at 48 months, respectively. These valve-related complications occurred more frequently in younger patients and in those with a Hancock pericardial valve (freedom from structural valve dysfunction, 89% +/- 5%; prosthetic valve endocarditis, 84% +/- 9%; reoperation, 78% +/- 10%; p less than 0.05 by Cox regression). Freedom from thromboembolism was 88% +/- 2% at 48 months; it was significantly lower in patients with a preoperative thromboembolic event and was not influenced by the type of prosthesis inserted. Freedom from anticoagulant-related hemorrhage was 85% +/- 8% at 48 months and was not influenced by any preoperative factors.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Allograft aortic root replacement in complex prosthetic endocarditis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate perioperative and long-term results of complex prosthetic valve endocarditis treated by allograft aortic root replacement. METHODS: From April 1988 through February 2006, 41 patients diagnosed as prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) complicated by root abscess and/or periprosthetic leak, underwent fresh allograft valve replacement by root replacement. There were 37 males (89.7%) and the mean age was 51.5+/-13.7 years. The NYHA functional class was 3.0+/-0.1. Thirty-seven patients (90%) had a mechanical prosthesis and in 10 (25.6%) the PVE was recent (< 3 months). Ten patients (24.4%) underwent emergency valve replacement and four (9.8%) presented with chronic renal failure. The patients were followed for a mean of 54.3 (2-166) months and the end-points were death of the patient or allograft failure. RESULTS: There were two hospital deaths (4.8%), both in patients with perioperative low cardiac output. Nine patients had transient acute renal failure (22.0%) but none required dialysis. Three patients (7.3%) needed pacemaker for complete A-V block. Eight patients (19.5%) died late; two died of cardiac reasons, four of non-cardiac reasons (stroke-one; acute colecystitis-two; traffic accident-two) and two of unknown cause. Two patients needed reoperation due to allograft failure at 61 and 82 months. In no case was there evidence of recurrence of endocarditis during the follow-up. The 10-year survival was 79%. CONCLUSIONS: Allograft aortic root replacement in prosthetic endocarditis complicated by abscess and/or periprosthetic leakage carries low morbidity and mortality and, in this series, no recurrence of infection. In our experience, these results are superior to those obtained with other valvular substitutes.     

Aortic operation after previous coronary artery bypass grafting

OBJECTIVES: Aortic surgery for progressive aortic valve disease or aortic aneurysm after previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is a challenging procedure. We report the outcome of aortic reoperation after previous CABG and evaluate our management of patent grafts and our methods for obtaining myocardial protection. METHODS: From February 2001 to July 2003, 6 patients with progressive aortic valve disease and aneurysm of the thoracic aorta were operated on. The group comprised 3 men and 3 women with a mean age of 67.6 years. There were 4 patients with an aneurysm of the aortic arch, 1 with chronic ascending aortic dissection, and 1 with progressive aortic valve stenosis. The interval between previous CABG and aortic surgery was 74.0 +/- 44.2 months. All reoperations were performed via median resternotomy. Myocardial protection was obtained by hypothermic perfusion of patent in-situ arterial grafts following cold-blood cardioplegia administration via the aortic root under aortic cross clamping. RESULTS: The operative procedure was aortic arch replacement in 4 patients, ascending aortic replacement with double CABG in 1, and aortic valve replacement in 1. All patients survived the reoperation. Postoperative maximum creatine kinase-MB was 49.2 +/- 29.8 and no new Q-waves occurred in the electrocardiogram nor were any new wall motion abnormalities recognized on echocardiography. There were no late deaths during a follow-up of 30.7 months. CONCLUSION: Reoperative aortic procedures after CABG can be performed safely with myocardial protection via hypothermic perfusion of a patent in-situ arterial graft.