Outcomes after mechanical aortic valve replacement in children and young adults with congenital heart disease

Objectives

There are little recent data on the outcomes of mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in children and young adults with congenital aortic valve disease. We sought to review the survival and associated thromboembolic or bleeding complications after mechanical AVR at a single center.

Cardiac valvular surgery in dialysis patients: comparison of surgical outcome for mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves

Purpose  There has been a changing preference for bioprosthetic valves over mechanical valves in dialysis patients, but there is still much controversy. We reviewed our 17-year experience and assessed the influence of prosthesis choice. Methods  From 1990 to 2007, a total of 63 consecutive dialysis patients who underwent valvular surgery (64 operations including one reoperation) at our hospital were retrospectively reviewed. The mean age of the patients was 58.3 ± 9.0 years. The reasons for dialysis were glomerulonephritis (n = 32) and diabetes (n = 10). The major preoperative diagnosis was aortic stenosis (n = 44). The surgical procedures included aortic valve replacement (n = 44), mitral valve replacement (n = 7), double valvular replacement (n = 7), and mitral valve repair (n = 5). Prostheses for valve replacement were mechanical valves (n = 37) or bioprosthetic valves (n = 22). Follow-up was accomplished in 95.2%, and the mean follow-up period was 49 months. Results  Actuarial survivals at 1, 5, and 10 years were 85%, 64%, and 45% respectively. Freedom from cardiovascular events at 1 and 5 years was 61% and 41%, respectively. Mechanical valve patients had significantly higher early mortality than bioprosthetic valve patients (P = 0.03). However, both mechanical and bioprosthetic valve patients had similar survival and event-free rates (P = 0.87 and P = 0.27, respectively) in the midterm results. The mechanical group had a higher rate of bleeding events. There was no structural valve deterioration up to the 5-year follow-up. Conclusion  The choice of prosthesis did not influence the surgical outcome except for early mortality. Careful consideration of preventive measures against bleeding is important, and prosthesis selection should be based on the patient’s profile as well as the criteria for nondialysis patients.     

Selection of prosthetic aortic valve and root replacement in patients younger than age 30 years

Objective

Long-term outcomes of prosthetic aortic valve/root replacement in patients aged 30 years or younger are not well understood. We report our single institutional experience in this young cohort.

Carpentier-Edwards pericardial aortic valve in middle-aged patients comparison with the St. Jude medical valve

Objective The objective of the present study was to compare long-term results of single aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical (St. Jude Medical valves: standard) and biologic (the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial) prostheses. Method: Between 1995 and 2002, 95 patients who underwent single AVR with mechanical (n=46) or biologic (n=49) prostheses were enrolled in this study. The mean age at the operation was 54.0±9.6 years (range: 20 to 69 years) with the mechanical and 68.8±7.1 years (range: 44 to 85 years) with the biologic prosthesis. Results: The 9-year actuarial survival rate, which was calculated by taking perioperative mortality into account, was 90.3±4.6% for patients with mechanical valves and 87.6 ±4.8% for patients with bioprostheses, with no difference between the two groups (p=0.342). The 9-year freedom rate from thromboembolism, reoperation, endocarditis was 94.8+3.6%, 100% and 97.8 ±2.2% for patients with mechanical valves and 98.0 ±2.0%, 97.5 ±3.4% and 95.0 ±3.4% for those with bioprostheses, respectively. After 9 years, freedom from cardiac death averaged 97.8% in the group with mechanical valves compared with 95.3% in those with bioprostheses (p=0.541). Conclusion: We conclude that the mid-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial valve in the aortic position for the elderly is excellent. Nevertheless, the risk of tissue valve reoperation progressively increases with time, and a longer follow-up may be necessary to provide its value compared with the mechanical valves in a country like Japan with a high life expectancy. (Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 53:465-469)     

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.     

Comparison of outcomes after mitral valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve in patients between forty and sixty years of age

Background  The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), guidelines for choice of prosthetic valve based on patients’ age are difficult to apply to the developing world because of a lower life expectancy and difficulty in maintaining correct levels of anticoagulation for a variety of reasons. While there is general agreement on the choice of prosthetic valves for patients below 40 years of age (mechanical) and above 60 years of age (biologic), the 40 to 60 age group remains a grey zone. The goal of our study was to compare outcomes after mitral valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve in patients between forty and sixty years of age. Methods  From Jan 2003 to July 2008, 250 patients between the ages of 40 and 60, undergoing mitral valve replacement at our institution were randomized to receive either a mechanical or a bioprosthetic valve. Outcomes in the form of incidence of valve thrombosis and thromboembolism, bleeding complications, incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis and survival were compared in the two groups. Results  Out of 250 patients, 135 patients received mechanical valve and 115 patients were implanted with a bioprosthetic valve. Patients were followed up for a mean period of 3 years (range 6 months to 4.8 years). The incidence of valve thrombosis was higher in mechanical valve as compared to bioprosthetic valve (6% vs. 0.9%, p= 0.04). Similarly there was a higher incidence of thromboembolism in mechanical valves as compared to bioprosthetic valves (4.5% vs. 0%, p=0.03). Bleeding complications occurred more frequently in mechanical than bioprosthetic valve (6% vs. 0.9%, p=0.04). There was no significant difference in the incidence of prosthetic valve endocarditis (2.2% vs. 2.7%, p >0.05) or survival at three years (96.2% vs. 97.2%, p > 0.05) in the two groups. Conclusions  Patients in the age group of 40 to 60 years undergoing mitral valve replacement with a mechanical valve have a higher incidence of thrombotic and bleeding complications as compared to bioprosthetic valve, even though short term survival is similar. This favours implantation of a bioprosthetic valve in this age group.     

Hospital readmission rates are similar between patients with mechanical versus bioprosthetic aortic valves

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate hospital readmission rates and clinical outcomes between bioprosthetic (bAVR) and mechanical (mAVR) aortic valve replacements (AVR).

Methods

Adults aged 50 years or older undergoing isolated or concomitant AVR between 2011 and 2017 were included. The primary outcome was 5‐year hospital readmission. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk‐adjusted impact of bAVR versus mAVR on outcomes.

Results

A total of 2981 patients were included: 406 (14%) mAVR and 2575 (86%) bAVR. Mean follow‐up was 2.9 ± 1.9 years. Operative mortality was comparable (4% bAVR vs 3% mAVR; P = 0.30). There was no risk‐adjusted difference in 30‐day (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, P = 0.46), 1‐year (HR 1.17, P = 0.52), or 5‐year mortality (HR 0.99, P = 0.93). Aortic valve 5‐year reoperation rates were comparable (1%, P = 0.32). Risk‐adjusted hospital readmissions were similar at 30 days (14% vs 15%; P = 0.63), 1 year (30% vs 27%; P = 0.43), and 5 years (55% vs 53%; P = 0.83) in the bAVR and mAVR groups, respectively. Similar findings were demonstrated when evaluating readmissions for bleeding (5‐year readmission: 8% bAVR vs 10% mAVR; P = 0.36).

Conclusions

In this analysis of over 2900 AVRs, readmissions within 5 years were comparable between groups at approximately 50%, with patients being at highest risk in the early postdischarge period. Readmissions for bleeding constituted a minority of all readmissions for both cohorts.     

Bioprosthetic Pulmonary Valve Dysfunction in Congenital Heart Disease

BackgroundWe aim to identify the incidence and timing of dysfunction and failure of stented bioprosthetic valves in the pulmonary position in congenital heart disease patients.MethodsA total of 482 congenital heart disease patients underwent 484 stented bioprosthetic pulmonary valve implantations between 2008 and 2018. There were 164 porcine valves (Porcine) and 320 bovine pericardial valves (Pericardial) implanted. Primary endpoints were survival, valve dysfunction, and valve failure.ResultsPericardial valves were implanted in older patients (22.0, interquartile range [IQR] 14-33 vs 16.0, IQR 11-23 years, P < 0.001). Five-year survival (96.7% vs 97.9%) for the Pericardial and Porcine groups, respectively, were similar, P > 0.05. Forty-six (34%) Porcine and 75 (27%) Pericardial group patients met criteria for valve dysfunction at a median echocardiographic follow-up time of 7.43 years (IQR 4.1-9.5 years) and 3.26 years (IQR 1.7-4.7 years), respectively. More Pericardial group patients suffered from at least mild late PR while late median peak gradient was higher in the Porcine group, P < .001 for both. Risk factors for valve dysfunction included decreasing patient age for the entire cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.04, P = .015) and lack of anticoagulation at discharge for the Porcine group (HR 3.06, 95% CI 1.03-9.10, P = .044) but not the Pericardial group. Five-year cumulative incidence of dysfunction was 39% for the Pericardial group and 17% for the Porcine group.ConclusionsPorcine stented and bovine pericardial stented valves can be implanted in the pulmonary position in all age groups safely. However, despite similar rates of valve failure, bovine pericardial stented valves have a higher incidence of valve dysfunction at mid-term follow-up.     

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.     

Selection of the prosthesis for aortic valve replacement: mechanical or bio?

To clarify the effect of the valve selection on the patients' prognosis, long-term outcome of the patients undergone isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) with the mechanical or bioprosthetic valve in our institution were investigated. In protocol 1, patients of all ages with isolated AVR (n = 472, composed of 166 who received a bioprosthesic valve [group B] and 306 who received a mechanical valve [Group MI) between 1975 and 2004 were investigated. In protocol 2, primary AVR patients aged 50-65 years (n = 184, composed of 47 in group B and 137 in group M) were compared. There were no significant differences in freedom from cardiac death, freedom from bleeding, and freedom from endocarditis in Protocols 1 and 2. Significantly fewer redo AVRs were required in group M in both protocols 1 and 2. However, group M was significantly worse in terms of freedom from thromboembolism in protocol 2. As a result, group M was superior to group B in freedom from valve-related events when redo AVR included. When redo AVR was excluded, there was no difference between the two groups in freedom from valve-related events in both protocols 1 and 2. There may thus be an advantage in selecting bioprosthetic valves in young adult patients who required AVR if they accepts the possibility of redo AVR in future.     

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.     

Bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement in elderly patients: Meta-analysis and microsimulation

ObjectiveTo support decision-making in aortic valve replacement (AVR) in elderly patients, we provide a comprehensive overview of outcome after AVR with bioprostheses.MethodsA systematic review was conducted of studies reporting clinical outcome after AVR with bioprostheses in elderly patients (mean age ≥70 years; minimum age ≥65 years) published between January 1, 2000, to September 1, 2016. Reported event rates and time-to-event data were pooled and entered into a microsimulation model to calculate life expectancy and lifetime event risks.ResultsForty-two studies reporting on 34 patient cohorts were included, encompassing a total of 12,842 patients with 55,437 patient-years of follow-up (pooled mean follow-up 5.0 ± 3.3 years). Pooled mean age was 76.5 ± 5.5 years. Pooled early mortality risk was 5.42% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.49-6.55), thromboembolism rate was 1.83%/year (95% CI, 1.28-3.61), and bleeding rate was 0.75%/year (95% CI, 0.50-1.11). Structural valve deterioration (SVD) was based on pooled time to SVD data (Gompertz; shape: 0.124, rate: 0.003). For a 75-year-old patient, this translated to an estimated life expectancy of 9.8 years (general population: 10.2 years) and lifetime risks of bleeding of 7%, thromboembolism of 17%, and reintervention of 9%.ConclusionsThe low risks of SVD and reintervention support the use of bioprostheses in elderly patients in need of AVR. The estimated life expectancy after AVR was comparable with the general population. The results of this study inform patients and clinicians about the expected outcomes after bioprosthetic AVR and thereby support treatment decision-making. Furthermore, our results can be used as a benchmark for long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients who were eligible for surgery and other (future) alternative treatments (eg, tissue-engineered heart valves).     

Selection of Prosthetic Valve and Evidence—Need for the Development of Japan’s Own Guidelines

Purpose: In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines were largely revised with regard to the selection of prosthetic valves. (1) A mechanical prosthesis is reasonable for aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) in patients less than 60 years of age, (2) A bioprosthesis is reasonable in patients more than 70 years of age, and (3) Either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve is reasonable in patients between 60 and 70 years of age.Japan faces the unprecedented population aging, and moreover, the average life expectancy is longer among the Japanese than the Westerners. In Japan, whether this choice is appropriate seems questionable.Methods: This time, with the revision of the AHA/ACC guidelines, it might be necessary to take into consideration the average life expectancy of Japanese people and revise the Japanese guidelines accordingly.Results: We should consider whether 60–70 years should be set as a gray zone regarding the age criteria for choosing biological valves, or if the age should be set higher relative to that specified in the western guidelines, given the longer Japanese life expectancy.Conclusion: We believe that the development of unique, Japanese guidelines for the selection of prosthetic valves will allow us to provide appropriate selection and treatment for each patient.     

Magna ease bioprosthetic aortic valve: mid-term haemodynamic outcomes in 1126 patients

 Open in a separate windowOBJECTIVESThe Magna Ease aortic valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) is a third-generation bioprosthetic valve developed as a modification of the well-studied Perimount and Magna valve designs. This study’s objective is to evaluate a large, single-centre experience with Magna Ease aortic valve replacement (AVR) focusing on clinical outcomes and haemodynamic performance.METHODSAll patients undergoing AVR between 8/2010 and 10/2018 at our institution implanted with the Magna Ease valve were included except those undergoing ventricular assist device or congenital aortic surgery. Primary outcomes were overall survival and freedom from reoperation. Mean transprosthetic gradient (mTPG) and structural valve deterioration (SVD) served as secondary outcomes.RESULTSTotally 1126 consecutive implantations of Magna Ease valves were included. Concomitant procedures were performed in 56.5% (n = 636). No severe patient–prosthesis mismatch (PPM) was present at implantation. Overall survival at 30 days, 1 year, 5 years and 9 years was 97.2%, 95.0%, 86.1% and 78.2%, respectively, with improved survival for isolated AVR. Total of 2.4% (n = 27) of patients required reoperation with 0.3% (n = 4) for SVD. Echocardiographic follow-up data revealed low mTPG throughout the study period. SVD occurred in 28.7% of patients at a mean of 3.9 years post implantation. CONCLUSIONSMagna Ease AVR maintained low mean transprosthetic gradients throughout mid-term evaluation and was associated with excellent overall survival and freedom from reoperation at nine years post implantation.     

Impact of dialysis in patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement

 Open in a separate windowOBJECTIVESTo determine the incidence of bioprosthetic structural valve deterioration in dialysis patients undergoing aortic valve replacement compared to that in patients without dialysis.METHODSThis single-centre retrospective observational study included 1159 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement using bioprosthetic valves for aortic stenosis and/or regurgitation at our institution between 2007 and 2017 [patients with dialysis (group D, n = 134, 12%) or without dialysis (group N, n = 1025, 88%)]. To adjust for potential differences between groups in terms of initial preoperative characteristics or selection bias, a propensity score analysis was conducted. The final sample that was used in the comparison included 258 patients, as follows: 129 patients with dialysis (group D) and 129 patients without dialysis (group N). The cumulative incidences of all-cause death, cardiac death and moderate or severe structural valve deterioration were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method.RESULTSOperative mortality was significantly higher in group D than group N (9% vs 0%, P = 0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed that in group D, the incidence was significantly higher for all-cause death (P < 0.001, 50% vs 18% at 5 years), cardiac death (P = 0.001, 18% vs 5% at 5 years) and moderate or severe structural valve deterioration (P < 0.001, 29% vs 5% at 5 years) compared with group N.CONCLUSIONSThe incidence of structural valve deterioration in dialysis patients undergoing aortic valve replacement was higher than that in patients without dialysis. Bioprosthetic valves should be carefully selected in dialysis patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.     

Biological versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in non-elderly patients: a single-centre analysis of clinical outcomes and quality of life

OBJECTIVESThe aim of this study was to evaluate short- and long-term clinical outcomes, including the perceived health-related quality of life, in patients younger than 65 years having undergone aortic valve replacement either with biological or mechanical valve prostheses.Open in a separate windowMETHODSBetween 2002 and 2013, 242 consecutive patients <65 years of age underwent isolated aortic valve replacement at our institution, either with biological (n = 134, 55.4%) or mechanical (n = 108, 44.6%) prostheses. Survival, health-related quality of life, short- and long-term clinical outcomes and echocardiographic data were analysed with a retrospective, single-centre study. Propensity matching was performed.RESULTSNo significant difference in survival was found between the 2 groups (mechanical versus biological: 100% vs 96.6% at 1 year, 98.2% vs 93.1% at 5 years and 92.3% vs 83.4% at 10 years after surgery, P = 0.091). For all the interviewed patients (n = 161, 66.5%), perceived quality of life at the latest follow-up was excellent. Need for reoperation was higher in the bioprosthetic group (8% vs 0%, P = 0.995), whereas the rate of major bleedings was higher in the mechanical valve group (3% vs 20%, P = 0.094). The mean and maximum transvalvular pressure gradients were 20.5 ± 9.7 and 37.4 ± 17.5 mmHg in the biological group and 14.8 ± 4.8 and 26.6 ± 9.2 mmHg in the mechanical group (P = 0.014).CONCLUSIONSNo significant differences were found between biological and mechanical valves in terms of patients’ survival, clinical outcomes and quality of life. Mean and maximum transvalvular pressure gradients were significantly higher in the biological group. The majority of patients would opt for the same prosthesis type, if asked to choose again.     

Long-term outcomes of valve replacement with modern prostheses in young adults.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the multiple impacts of valve replacement on the lives of young adults. METHODS: Patients (N=500) between age 18 and 50 who had aortic valve replacement (AVR) and/or mitral valve replacement (MVR) with contemporary prostheses were followed annually. Events, functional status, and quality of life were examined with regression models. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 7.1+/-5.3 years (maximum 26.7 years). Five, 10, and 15-year survival was 92.7+/-1.7, 88.3+/-2.4 and 80.1+/-4.7% after AVR, and 93.1+/-2.3, 79.5+/-4.3 and 71.5+/-5.4% after MVR, respectively. Survival decreased with concomitant coronary disease (hazard ratio (HR): 4.5) and preoperative LV grade (HR: 2.0/grade increase) in AVR patients, and with atrial fibrillation (HR: 5.5), coronary disease (HR: 5.7), preoperative left atrial diameter (HR: 3.0/cm increase) and NYHA class (HR: 2.1/class increase) in MVR patients. Despite reoperation, late survival was equivalent between bioprostheses and mechanical valves in both implant positions. The ten-year cumulative incidence of embolic stroke was 6.3+/-2.4% for mechanical AVR patients, 6.4+/-2.9% for bioprosthetic AVR patients, 12.7+/-3.9% for mechanical MVR patients, and 3.1+/-3.1% for bioprosthetic MVR patients. Atrial fibrillation (HR: 2.8) and smoking (HR: 4.0) were risk factors for stroke in MVR patients. In AVR patients, SF-12 physical scores, freedom from recurrent heart failure, and freedom from disability were significantly higher in bioprosthetic than mechanical valve patients. Career or income limitations were more often subjectively linked to a mechanical prosthesis in both implant positions. CONCLUSIONS: Late outcomes of modern prosthetic valves in young adults remain suboptimal. Bioprostheses deserve consideration in the aortic position, as mechanical valves are associated with lower physical capacity, a higher prevalence of disability, and poorer disease perception. Early surgical referral and atrial fibrillation surgery may improve survival after MVR.     

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.     

Effect of conventional and rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement on the distance from the aortic annulus to coronary arteries

Open in a separate window OBJECTIVESThis study aimed to compare the effect of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) on coronary height in patients undergoing SAVR with rapid-deployment or SAVR with several standard sutured bioprostheses. This study may identify patients at higher risk of coronary obstruction during valve-in-valve procedures.METHODSWe analysed 112 patients [mean age 71 (9 SD) years] who underwent SAVR with either a rapid-deployment aortic bioprosthesis (EDWARDS INTUITY Elite Valve) or other standard sutured biological valves. The coronary heights were assessed by computed tomography scan with the Philips 3D HeartNavigator system.RESULTSTwo groups of patients were analysed: 51 (45.5%) patients implanted with an RD-AVR, which is a supra-annular valve that requires 3 anchoring sutures without the use of pledgets, and 61 (54.5%) patients implanted with a conventional supra-annular sutured bioprosthesis. The mean right and left coronary artery-to-annulus (RCAA and LCAA) heights at baseline were 16.9 (4.6 SD) and 14.2 (4.0 SD) mm in the standard sutured group and 16.3 (3.5 SD) and 12.8 (2.9 SD) mm in the RD-AVR group, respectively; a significantly shorter distance was observed for the left coronary artery in the rapid-deployment group (P = 0.420 for RCAA height and P = 0.044 for LCAA). Postoperatively, the mean RCAA and LCAA heights were significantly decreased in both groups compared to baseline. A mean of 11.5 (4.8 SD) mm for the RCAA and 7.9 (4.3 SD) mm for the LCAA in the standard sutured group as well as 14.4 (3.9 SD) mm for the RCAA and 9.0 (3.1 SD) mm for the LCAA in the RD-AVR group were observed (P < 0.001 for RCAA and LCAA in both the sutured and rapid-deployment groups). Despite the significant difference in the mean distance from the left coronary artery to annulus between the groups at baseline, the postoperative mean distance of the LCAA to the sewing ring was still higher in the RD-AVR group.CONCLUSIONSA significantly shorter coronary artery-to-aortic annulus distance for both the right and left main coronary arteries was observed after AVR with different conventional sutured supra-annular bioprostheses compared to AVR with rapid-deployment valves. These findings might be relevant for bioprosthesis selection, especially for young patients.     

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.