Emergency aortic valve replacement in active endocarditis with the Bj?rk-Shiley tilting disc valve prosthesis.

Because of severe and intractable heart failure in three patients with infective endocarditis, an emergency replacement of the aortic valve with a Bj?rk-Shiley prosthesis was carried out. Heart failure, which is the most common cause of death in infective endocarditis, was in these cases due to acute aortic regurgitation caused by perforation and other damage of the aortic valve. One patient died in the early postoperative period because of myocardial damage and respiratory insufficiency. The other two survived and are in relatively good condition after follow-up periods of 2 years and 6 months, respectively. The emergency replacement of incompetent valves may be a lifesaving procedure during the course of active endocarditis.     

Comparison of bioprosthetic and mechanical valve replacement for active endocarditis

The choice between bioprosthetic or mechanical prosthetic valve replacement for active valvular endocarditis has been controversial. To establish the role of each, we reviewed the case histories of 185 patients who underwent valve replacement for active valvular endocarditis during the past 5 years. All patients had life-threatening, active bacterial endocarditis of a native or prosthetic valve. Group I (88 patients) had replacement with the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial valve and Group II (97 patients) with the St. Jude Medical valve. The male/female distribution, age range, and functional classification were the same in the two groups. Mean follow-up was approximately 20 months for both groups. Valve replacement was done because of native valve endocarditis in 76 patients in Group I and 49 patients in Group II. Of the remainder of the Group I patients, six had endocarditis of a bioprosthesis and six of a mechanical valve; of the remainder of Group II patients, 30 had endocarditis of a bioprosthesis and 18 of a mechanical valve. Early mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (14 deaths in each group). Of the 74 survivors in Group I, 15 underwent valve reoperation, 10 because of recurrent endocarditis and five because of sterile perivalvular leakage. The frequency of reoperation was significantly different (p less than 0.01) from that in Group II, in which only five patients underwent valve reoperation, four for recurrent endocarditis and one for sterile perivalvular leakage. The actuarial rate for freedom from reoperation was also significantly higher in Group II patients; 94.6% were free from reoperation at 4 years compared to 75% at 4 years in Group I patients (p less than 0.01). The actuarial survival rate, which also differed significantly between groups, was 78.7% at 4 years in Group I and 87.4% at 4 years in Group II (p less than 0.05). Patients receiving a bioprosthesis for active endocarditis had a significantly higher reoperation rate and a significantly greater incidence of recurrent endocarditis (p less than 0.01). Therefore, we prefer to use a mechanical valve for valve replacement in most patients who have active endocarditis.     

Concomitant mitral valve surgery with aortic valve replacement: a 21-year experience with a single mechanical prosthesis

Background  

Long-term survival for combined aortic and mitral valve replacement appears to be determined by the mitral valve prosthesis from our previous studies. This 21-year retrospective study assess long-term outcome and durability of aortic valve replacement (AVR) with either concomitant mitral valve replacement (MVR) or mitral valve repair (MVrep). We consider only a single mechanical prosthesis.     

Cardiac valve replacement with Wada-Cutter prosthesis

The Wada-Cutter cardiac valve prosthesis, a hingeless valve, was developed and used clinically in 106 patients in whom 42 aortic valve replacements, 48 mitral valve replacements, 5 tricuspid valve replacements, and 11 multiple valve replacements were done. A continuous knotless suture technique was invariably employed for fixation of the prosthesis regardless of the type of operation.     

Neurocognitive deficit following aortic valve replacement with biological/mechanical prosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to objectively measure neurocognitive deficit following aortic valve replacement with a mechanical or biological prosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, contemporary study we followed 82 consecutive patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement with either a mechanical (n=29, mean age=52+/-7 years) or a biological (n=53, mean age=68+/-10 years) valve prosthesis. Neurocognitive function was measured by means of objective P300 auditory evoked potentials (peak latencies, ms) and two standard psychometric tests (Trailmaking Test A, Mini Mental State Examination) before the operation, 7 days and 4 months after the operation, respectively. RESULTS: Since P300 peak latencies increase with age, preoperative P300 measures are lower in patients receiving mechanical valves (360+/-35 ms, mean 52 years) as compared to patients receiving biological valves (381+/-34 ms, 68 years, P=0.0001). Seven days after surgery, P300 peak latencies were prolonged (-worsened) in both groups as compared to preoperative values (mechanical valves: 384+/-36 ms; P=0.0001 and biological valves: 409+/-39 ms; P=0.0001). Although on a different level (-age-related), this development was comparable within both groups (P=0.800). Four months after surgery, P300 peak latencies normalized in the mechanical valve group (372+/-27 ms, P=0.857 versus preoperative), while in contrast in the biological valve group they remained prolonged (417+/-37 ms, P=0.0001). We found no difference within patients receiving different types of biological or mechanical aortic valves. CONCLUSION: Postoperative neurocognitive damage is not reversible in (-elderly) patients with biological aortic valve replacement, while in contrast postoperative neurocognitive damage is reversible in (-younger) patients with mechanical valve replacement. For this contrary development, age seems to be most important, whereas damage related to type of valve prosthesis may be overestimated.     

Cardiac valve replacement in children: comparison of tissue with mechanical prostheses

Replacement of cardiac valves in children has been associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity in the past. We have compared 24 children from 2 to 18 years of age who have received mechanical valves with 24 children who have received porcine valves. The groups were similar except that (1) there were more mitral operations in the mechanical valve group and more aortic operations in the porcine valve group; (2) more porcine than mechanical valves were implanted in recent years; and (3) the porcine valve group comprised more young patients under 8 years and required more complex operations. Early and late mortality rates were higher in the mechanical than in the porcine valve group. Major late complications were seen in 50 percent of the mechanical valve group and 13 percent of the porcine group. Implantation of an adult-sized aortic valve was made possible in all patients by the use of aortic augmentation annuloplasty. Higher operative mortality rates in the mechanical valve group may have been related more to technique of myocardial preservation during operation than to type of valve. Although differing rates of late morbidity and mortality may also have been related to myocardial preservation and other technical factors, the type of valve used seemed to be an important determinant of the better results in the porcine group. Despite unknown durability of the porcine valve, our data suggest that the safest prosthetic valve to use in children at this time is the glutaraldehyde-fixed porcine prosthesis.     

Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement

OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare outcomes with tissue and St Jude Medical mechanical valves over a 20-year period. METHODS: Valve-related events and overall survival were analyzed in 2533 patients 18 years of age or older undergoing initial aortic, mitral, or combined aortic and mitral (double) valve replacement with a tissue valve (Hancock, Carpentier-Edwards porcine, or Carpentier-Edwards pericardial) or a St Jude Medical mechanical valve. Total follow-up was 13,390 patient-years. There were 666 St Jude Medical aortic valve replacements, 723 tissue aortic valve replacements, 513 St Jude Medical mitral valve replacements, 402 tissue mitral valve replacements, 161 St Jude Medical double valve replacements, and 68 tissue double valve replacements. The mean age was 68 +/- 13.3 years (St Jude Medical valve, 64.5 +/- 12.9; tissue valve, 72.0 +/- 12.6). RESULTS: There were no overall differences in survival between tissue and mechanical valves. Multivariable analysis indicated that the type of valve did not affect survival. Analysis by age less than 65 years or 65 years or older and presence or absence of coronary disease revealed similar long-term survival in all subgroups. The risk of hemorrhage was lower in patients receiving tissue aortic valve replacements but was not significantly different in patients receiving mitral valve or double valve replacements. Thromboembolism rates were similar for tissue and mechanical valve recipients. However, reoperation rates were significantly higher in patients receiving both aortic and mitral tissue valves. The reoperation hazard increased progressively with time both in patients receiving aortic and in those receiving mitral tissue valves. Overall valve complications were initially higher with mechanical aortic valves but not with mechanical mitral valves. However, valve complication rates later crossed over, with higher rates in tissue valve recipients after 7 years in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement and 10 years in those undergoing aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Tissue and mechanical valve recipients have similar survival over 20 years of follow-up. The primary tradeoff is an increased risk of hemorrhage in patients receiving mechanical aortic valve replacements and an increased risk of late reoperation in all patients receiving tissue valve replacements. The risk of tissue valve reoperation increases progressively with time.     

Results of valve replacement with the Omniscience prosthesis

Clinical experience with the Omniscience prosthesis from two regional cardiac units in England is presented. Actuarial analysis suggests a prohibitive incidence of prosthetic thrombosis of the mitral valve, this complication occurring in 14 of a total of 96 (15%) patients studied over a mean period of approximately 1 1/2 years. Aortic valve implantations were frequently complicated by prosthetic dehiscence, which occurred in nine of a total of 88 (10%) patients who received this valve. Our results with this prosthesis contrasts markedly with our favorable experience with other types of prostheses and lead us to question the suitability of the Omniscience valve for further clinical use.     

Biological versus mechanical prostheses for aortic valve replacement

ObjectivesLong-term real-world outcomes are critical for informing decisions about biological (Bio) or mechanical (Mech) prostheses for aortic valve replacement, particularly in patients aged between 50 and 65 years. The objective was to compare long-term survival and major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (ie, stroke, reoperation, and major bleeding) within this population.MethodsThis was a multicenter observational study including all patients aged between 50 and 65 years who underwent an aortic valve replacement because of severe isolated aortic stenosis between the years 2000 and 2018. A total of 5215 patients from 27 Spanish hospitals were registered with a follow-up of 15 years. Multivariable analyses, including a 2:1 propensity score matching (1822 Mech and 911 Bio) and competing risks analyses were applied.ResultsBio prostheses were implanted in 19% of patients (n = 992). No significant differences were observed between matched groups in long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.47; P = .33). Stroke rates were higher for Mech prostheses, but not significant (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50-1.03; P = .07). Finally, higher rates of major bleeding were found in the Mech group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87; P = .004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among the Bio group (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.80-5.14; P < .001). Bio prostheses increased from 13% in the period from 2000 to 2008 to 24% in 2009 to 2018.ConclusionsLong-term survival was comparable among groups in patients between 50 and 65 years of age. Mech prostheses were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding, whereas Bio prostheses entailed higher reoperation rates. Bio prostheses seem a reasonable choice for patients between 50 and 65 years in Spain.