Tricuspid valve replacement: an analysis of 25 years of experience at a single center

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve replacement is seldom used in clinical practice, but the choice between mechanical and biologic prostheses remains controversial. METHODS: Between 1977 and 2002, 97 patients underwent tricuspid valve replacement and were followed at the Montreal Heart Institute Valve Clinic. Patients underwent replacement with bioprostheses (n = 82) and mechanical valves (n = 15). RESULTS: Patients with bioprosthetic tricuspid replacements averaged 53 +/- 13 years of age compared with 48 +/- 11 years in those with tricuspid mechanical valve replacements (p = 0.2). Isolated tricuspid valve replacement was performed in 11 patients (73%) in the mechanical valve group compared with 31 patients (38%. p = 0.01) in the bioprosthetic replacement group. In patients undergoing bioprosthetic tricuspid replacement, 51 (62%) underwent multiple associated valve replacements. The 5-year survival after tricuspid replacement averaged 60% +/- 13% in the mechanical valve group and 56% +/- 6% in the biologic replacement group (p = 0.8). The 5-year freedom rate from tricuspid valve reoperation averaged 91% +/- 9% in patients with mechanical valves and 97% +/- 3% in those with biologic valves (p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS; Patient survival after tricuspid valve replacement is suboptimal but related to the clinical condition at operation. The use of biologic prostheses for tricuspid valve replacement remains a good option in young patients because of limited life expectancy unrelated to the type of tricuspid prostheses at long-term follow-up.     

Cardiac valve replacement in patients on dialysis: influence of prosthesis on survival

BACKGROUND: Mechanical valves have been recommended for patients on dialysis because of purported accelerated bioprosthesis degeneration. This study was undertaken to determine time-related outcomes in dialysis patients requiring cardiac valve replacement. METHODS: From 1986 to 1998, 42 patients on chronic preoperative dialysis underwent valve replacement; 17 received mechanical valves and 25 received bioprostheses. Age was similar in both groups: 54+/-18.5 years (mechanical) and 59+/-15.5 years (bioprosthetic, p = 0.4). Sites of valve replacement were aortic (27), mitral (11), and aortic and mitral (4). Follow-up was 100% complete. RESULTS: Survival at 3 and 5 years was 50% and 33% after mechanical valve replacement, and 36% and 27% after bioprosthetic valve replacement (p = 0.3). Four patients with bioprostheses required reoperation: 3 for allograft endocarditis and 1 at 10 months for mitral bioprosthesis degeneration. One patient who received a mechanical valve required reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic valve-related complications in patients on dialysis were similar for both mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. Because of the limited life expectancy of patients on dialysis, bioprosthesis degeneration will be uncommon. Therefore, surgeons should not hesitate to implant bioprosthetic valves in these patients.     

Prosthetic replacement of tricuspid valve: bioprosthetic or mechanical

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve replacement is one of the most challenging operations in cardiac surgery. Selection of the suitable prosthesis is still debatable. METHODS: In our institution, between January 1980 and December 2000, 129 tricuspid valve replacements were performed in 122 patients (14.7%). Bioprosthetic valves were used in 32 patients, whereas 97 patients had mechanical valve implantation. Twenty-two percent of replacements were done on men. Mean age was 35.27+/-11.56 years. In all patients, initially an annuloplasty technique was tried. Tricuspid valve replacement was performed when annuloplasty was not sufficient. In most of the cases, tricuspid valve interventions were done under cardiopulmonary bypass and on a beating heart. RESULTS: Early mortality was 24.5%. Patients were followed for 2 to 228 months. Seven patients underwent reoperation because of tricuspid valve dysfunction (7.6%). Nine patients died during the follow-up period. Late mortality was 9.7%. Actuarial estimates of survival in 20 years of follow-up for all tricuspid prosthetic valves, mechanical valves, and bioprosthetic valves were 65.1%+/-9.3%, 68.3%+/-10.6%, and 54.8%+/-12.1%, respectively. For the bioprosthetic valve group, freedom from structural valve degeneration was 90%+/-5.5%; for the mechanical valve group, freedom from deterioration, endocarditis, and leakage was 97.8%+/-4.2%, and freedom from thromboembolism was 92.6%+/-6.9%. CONCLUSIONS: We found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of early mortality, re-replacement, and midterm mortality (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, we recommend low profile modern bileaflet mechanical valves for prosthetic replacement of the tricuspid valve, due to their favorable hemodynamic characteristics and durability.     

Aortic valve selection in the elderly patient

To determine the influence of valve selection on valve-related morbidity and mortality and patient survival, comparative long-term performance characteristics of mechanical (N = 68) and bioprosthetic (N = 73) heart valves were analyzed for 141 patients more than 70 years old who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement between 1970 and 1985. Cumulative patient follow-up was 491 patient-years (average, 4.3 years per patient). Hospital mortality was 18% and 19% for patients with mechanical valves and bioprosthetic valves, respectively. Survival at 5 years was 61 +/- 7% (+/- the standard error) and 67 +/- 10% for recipients of mechanical valves and bioprosthetic valves, respectively. Male sex (p = 0.014) and urgency of operation (p = 0.006) were independent risk factors for hospital mortality. Atrial fibrillation increased valve-related mortality (p = 0.01). No patient required reoperation or experienced structural valve failure. While anticoagulant-related hemorrhage was increased in recipients of mechanical valves (9.2 +/- 2.1%/patient-year) compared with recipients of bioprosthetic valves (2.3 +/- 1.1%/patient-year), it did not result in a death or lead to permanent disability. There was no difference in freedom from any valve-related complication at 5 years. However, when all morbid events are considered, recipients of bioprosthetic valves experienced fewer valve-related complications than patients receiving mechanical valves (10.7 +/- 2.3%/patient-year versus 17.6 +/- 2.5%/patient-year, respectively; p less than 0.05). The reduced incidence of anticoagulant-related hemorrhage and the infrequent need for warfarin sodium anticoagulation favor selection of a bioprosthetic heart valve in patients older than 70 years.     

Valve replacement in the right side of the heart in children: long-term follow-up

Twenty-five patients (16 male, 9 female) underwent right-sided valve replacement (10 pulmonary valve replacement, 14 tricuspid valve replacement, 3 tricuspid plus pulmonary valve replacement, and 2 replacements of a single atrioventricular valve) at the University of Nebraska Medical Center from June 1977 to December 1986. Twenty-one patients (84%) are long-term survivors with 2,035 months follow-up (range, 41 to 143 months; mean, 96.9 months). Twenty-three Carpentier-Edwards bioprosthetic valves, one Ionescu-Shiley bioprosthetic valve, and nine St. Jude Medical valves were inserted. Follow-up of 17 patients with a Carpentier-Edwards valve ranged from 5 years 9 months to 11 years 9 months (mean, 8 years 11 months). To date there has been one reoperation after 3 years 4 months in this group. One patient who received an Ionescu-Shiley bioprosthesis required re-replacement at 20 months after operation. Three of 4 patients who received St. Jude mechanical valves and are long-term survivors have required replacement after 36 to 56 months. We conclude that the Carpentier-Edwards bioprosthetic valve is a viable option in the right side of the heart in the young age group when annular size is adequate to accommodate an appropriate bioprosthesis.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Valve replacement in patients on chronic renal dialysis: implications for valve prosthesis selection

BACKGROUND: Reports are sparse describing heart valve replacement in patients with end-stage renal disease. This review assesses a 15-year experience and outcomes after valve replacement in patients on chronic preoperative renal dialysis. METHODS: A computerized database, hospital records, and telephone contact provided outcome data for patients on chronic dialysis undergoing valve replacement between March 22, 1985, and October 13, 2000, in two hospitals. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent 95 valve procedures (74 operations). Ages ranged from 23 years to 84 years (mean, 57 years). Fifty-five aortic, 30 mitral, and 3 tricuspid valve replacements and 7 valvuloplasties were performed. Six of the 74 procedures were reoperative valve replacements. In the 46 patients with reliable long-term (greater than 30 days) follow-up data, significant bleeding or stroke was documented in 17 of 34 patients with a mechanical valve and 1 of 12 patients with a bioprosthetic valve. Overall survival (including two operative deaths) was 72.8% at 3 months, 65.4% at 6 months, 60.5% at 1 year, 39.8% at 2 years, 28.5% at 3 years, and 15.9% at 6 years (Kaplan-Meier). Type of valve implanted did not influence early and late survival. CONCLUSIONS: In this series of patients on chronic dialysis, survival appears to justify valve replacement. However, the sixfold higher incidence of late bleeding or stroke in patients on dialysis with a mechanical valve requiring warfarin suggests that bioprosthetic valves are the valve substitute of choice in patients on chronic dialysis.     

Aortic valve replacement: choice between mechanical valves and bioprostheses

BACKGROUND: The choice between a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve replacement device is not always clear, although patient age is most often the determining factor. We reviewed our experience with patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) in order to assess and compare long-term outcomes between patients receiving a mechanical valve and those receiving a bioprosthesis. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-two patients underwent AVR with or without coronary artery bypass between 1993 and 2004: 189 received a mechanical valve and 163 a bioprosthesis. Events included: late mortality, thrombo-embolic events, stroke, bleeding events, valve thrombosis, endocarditis, reoperation, and coronary catheterization. RESULTS: Patients in the bioprosthesis group were older (71 +/- 11 vs. 65 +/- 13) than in the mechanical group (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in operative mortality (6.8%) or morbidity. Follow-up (61 +/- 40 months) was available in 87%. For mechanical valves and bioprostheses, respectively: 3-, 5-, and 10-year survival was 92%, 86%, and 69% versus 90%, 86%, and 71% (p = n.s.); and event-free survival was 79%, 68%, and 41% versus 79%, 68%, and 44% (p = n.s.). Five patients (3%) in each group required re-replacement of their aortic valve (p = n.s.). Coronary artery disease requiring bypass surgery did not affect long-term survival. Age at operation and renal failure were the only predictors for late mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Survival and event-free survival are similar for patients receiving a mechanical or biological aortic valve substitute. Selection of a valve replacement device should be based on life expectancy, patient preference, ability to take anticoagulants, lifestyle, risk of bleeding, and risk of reoperation. Patient age alone should not be the determining factor.     

Fate of a second porcine bioprosthetic valve

Since October, 1971, 744 porcine bioprosthetic valves were inserted in patients discharged from the hospital and were therefore at risk for primary valve failure or tissue degeneration. In this period of time, 41 valves have demonstrated spontaneous degeneration. The percentages of valve survival without degeneration are as follows: at 6 yeras, 93% +/- 1.5% (SE); 7 years, 88% +/- 2.0%; 8 years, 82% +/- 2.9%; 9 years, 80% +/- 3.4%. The incidence of degeneration appears to be decreasing even though the total number of valves at risk is increasing each year. Of the 41 valves removed for spontaneous degeneration, 25 valves in 24 patients have been replaced by a second bioprosthesis. These 24 patients have been followed up for from 2 to 61 months, and there has been no clinical evidence of degeneration of the second bioprosthesis. One patient has had a second bioprosthesis longer than the first. Although others have suggested that degeneration may be immunologic event, our experience suggests that there is no "second set" rejection. The absence of a "second set" rejection and the suggestion of a decreasing incidence of degeneration makes us continue to favor the bioprosthesis for primary and secondary valve replacement.     

Prosthetic valve replacement in children

Between 1975 and 1998, 27 patients aged 3 months to 14 years underwent replacement of the aortic, mitral, tricuspid, and pulmonary valves. Five different types of prosthetic valves were used; three were mechanical valves and two were bioprosthetic valves. There were 3 hospital deaths. Among the 24 survivors there were 4 late deaths. Arrhythmia requiring pacemaker implantation occurred in 2 cases after AVR and TVR. Thromboembolic events occurred in 3 patients, all with mechanical valves in pulmonary position. Infective endocarditis occurred in 1 patient after PVR with a mechanical valve. No bleeding complication occurred among the patients on a regimen of Coumadin and Dipyridamole. Two patients, both with Hancock bioprosthesis, required a second valve replacement on account of severely calcified changes. Mechanical valves in left side heart had a satisfactory long-term performance. One patient who had undergone MVR for congenital parachute mitral valve received reoperation for growth. A larger sized prosthetic valve should be used at the first replacement, and special procedures including supra-annular positioning or annular augmentation are recommended for MVR or AVR respectively.     

Long-term follow-up of cardiac valve replacement using bioprosthesis in patients 70 years old and older

Good long-term results with the bioprosthetic valves for patients 70 years old and older have been reported. However, because the average lifespan is increasing, we aimed to clarify whether patients older than 70 may still be candidates for valve re-replacement. Seventy-one patients 70 years old and older, who received a total of 81 bioprosthetic valve replacements during 73 procedures between 1988 and 2000, were reviewed. There were 8 hospital and 7 late deaths. Ten-year actual survival after valve replacement was 73.5%, and 82.8% when hospital deaths were excluded. During the follow-up period, 2 patients received mitral valve re-replacement. Ten years of freedom from reoperation were found in 66.7% for all valves and in 50.0% for mitral valves. The average lifespan in Japan is currently 77.64 years for men and 84.62 years for women; therefore, valve degeneration in patients who receive bioprosthesis replacement in their early 70s should be anticipated.     

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.     

Porcine versus pericardial bioprostheses: a comparison of late results in 1,593 patients

From 1976 to 1988, 1,593 patients underwent valve replacement with a porcine (878 patients) or a pericardial bioprosthesis (715 patients). There were 701 aortic, 678 mitral, and 214 multiple-valve replacements. Follow-up was obtained for 1,559 patients (98%). Early mortality was 9% (79 patients) in the porcine valve group and 5% (37 patients) among patients with a pericardial valve (p less than 0.01). Late survival after replacement with porcine valves was 80% +/- 1% and 62% +/- 3% at 5 and 10 years, respectively. With pericardial valves, 5-year survival was 79% +/- 2%. Among valve-related complications, rates of freedom from thromboembolism, endocarditis, and hemorrhage after 6 years were similar for both valve groups. Freedom from reoperation at 6 years was also similar after aortic (96% versus 91%) or multiple-valve replacement (95% versus 88%). However, for mitral valve replacement, freedom from reoperation was significantly better with porcine valves than with pericardial valves at 6 years (92% versus 68%; p less than 0.001). This difference was mainly due to the Ionescu-Shiley valve, which accounted for 83% of primary tissue failures among pericardial bioprostheses implanted in the mitral position (10/12 patients). After 6 years, freedom from primary tissue failure of mitral valves was 92% +/- 2% with porcine and 70% +/- 11% with pericardial bioprostheses (p less than 0.0001). The degree of clinical improvement among survivors was similar with both valve types. Thus, in the aortic position, pericardial valves compare with porcine valves up to 6 years, whereas in the mitral position, the durability of the former is significantly less, mainly because of the suboptimal performance of the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial bioprosthesis.     

Tissue heart valve implantation in India; Indications, results and impact on quality of life

Backgound There is limited experience with bioprosthetic heart valve implantation in India and results and follow-up are not available. This study aims to assess the suitability of the bioprostheses in the Indian population and impact on their quality of life. Patients and Methods Between January 2000 and December 2006, 457 patients underwent bioprosthetic valve replacement. Their age ranged from 20–77 years with a mean age of 55.5±9.3 years. A total of 559 bioprosthesis were implanted: of these 200 (43%) were mitral valve replacements (MVR), 154 (33.7%) aortic valve replacements (AVR), 102 (22.3%) double valve replacements (DVR) and one(0.2 %) tricuspid valve replacement (TVR). Results There were 11 (2.4%) early and 3 late deaths (0.7%). Post-operative gradients were low. Actuarial survival at 60 months was 95.1±2.2%. The actuarial event free survival was 87.9±5.7% at 60 months. Advantages were freedom from thromboembolism (97.6%), infective endocarditis (98%), haemorrhage (99.7%), Paravalvular leak (99.3%), valve dysfunction (100%) and re-operation (100%). Assessment of quality of life using the standard World Health Organization questionnaire for quality of life yielded satisfactory results. Conclusions Bioprosthesis are particularly suited for older age patients in our country and are associated with a good quality of life. However long-term results on valve function are awaited.     

More than ten years' follow-up of the Hancock porcine bioprosthesis in Japan.

From February 1975 through October 1981, 256 Hancock porcine bioprostheses (Johnson & Johnson Cardiovascular, King of Prussia, Pa.) (60 aortic, 169 mitral, and 27 pulmonary/tricuspid position) were implanted in 220 patients (104 male and 116 female, aged 9 to 67 years; mean 43.3) at Kyushu University Hospital in Japan. The procedures include 41 aortic valve replacements, 121 mitral valve replacements, 4 pulmonary valve replacements, 6 tricuspid valve replacements, and 48 combined valve replacements (31 aortic plus mitral, 13 mitral plus tricuspid, and 4 aortic plus mitral plus tricuspid). Hospital mortality was 6.4%. Follow-up was 98% during 8 to 14 (mean 10.5) years. Cumulative follow-up was 1836 patient-years and 2078 valve-years. At 10 years the overall actuarial survival rate, including hospital morality, was 70% +/- 3%, and freedom from valve-related mortality with sudden death was 87% +/- 3%. More than half of the current survivors required no anticoagulant therapy. Freedom from thromboembolism or anticoagulant-related hemorrhage (or both) and prosthetic valve endocarditis was common. Freedom from structural valve failure and reoperation declined more than 9 years after replacement of left-sided heart valves but not after replacement of right-sided heart valves. Sixty-seven patients underwent 68 repeat operations, and there were four deaths (5.9%). The rate of freedom from overall valve-related complications at 10 years was 62% +/- 8% for aortic valve replacement, 53% +/- 5% for mitral valve replacement, 80% +/- 13% for pulmonary/tricuspid valve replacement, and 42% +/- 9% for combined valve replacement. There was a significant difference between pulmonary/tricuspid valve replacement and combined valve replacement (p less than 0.05). The Hancock bioprosthesis is suitable for the replacement of valves in the right side of the heart but not for combined valve replacement.     

Mitral valve replacement in the first 5 years of life

Between 1976 and 1986, 19 children aged 1 month to 5 years underwent replacement of the mitral (systemic atrioventricular) valve. Indications for valve replacement included isolated congenital mitral stenosis (n = 2), valve dysfunction associated with a more complex procedure (n = 15), and failed valvuloplasty (n = 2). Seven different valve types were used; nine were mechanical valves and ten were bioprosthetic valves. There were 6 hospital deaths (32%; 70% confidence limits, 20% to 47%). Among the 13 survivors there were 3 late deaths at a mean of 14 months after operation. The late deaths were unrelated to valve malfunction. Thromboembolic events occurred in 2 patients, both with mechanical valves. One minor bleeding complication occurred among 10 patients on a regimen of Coumadin (crystalline warfarin sodium). Five patients, all with bioprostheses, required a second valve replacement. Indications for reoperation included prosthetic valve regurgitation (n = 1) and calcific stenosis (n = 4). No early or late deaths occurred after second valve replacement. Survival was 51% +/- 12% (standard error) at 112 months after valve replacement. Analysis failed to identify age, weight, sex, previous operation, underlying cardiac lesion, or prosthesis size and type as significant risk factors for mortality. Mechanical valves had a lower reoperation rate compared with bioprostheses. These data suggest that although mitral valve replacement within the first 5 years of life is associated with a high operative and late mortality, satisfactory long-term palliation for many patients can be achieved. Mechanical valves are superior to bioprosthetic valves, and offer the best long-term results.     

Early and late risk of mitral valve replacement. A 12 year concomitant comparison of the porcine bioprosthetic and prosthetic disc mitral valves

A consecutive series of 706 mitral valve replacements was performed from January, 1972, to January, 1984. The follow-up ranged from 6 to 150 months with a mean of 50 and a median of 43 months. Seven percent (50) of the patient were lost to follow-up. There were 243 men and 463 women, whose ages ranged from 17 to 86 years (mean 58). A porcine bioprosthetic valve was implanted in 528 patients (514 Hancock and 14 Carpentier-Edwards valves) and a prosthetic disc valve in 178 patients (102 standard disc Bj?rk-Shiley, 34 Beall, and 42 Harken disc valves). Seven patients were in Functional Class II, 325 in Class III, and 374 in Class IV. A concomitant operative procedure was performed in 253 of the 706 patients (36%). Mitral regurgitation was the primary hemodynamic lesion in 363 and mitral stenosis in 343. Operative mortality figures were as follows: 77 of 706 (11%) for the overall group, 34 of 453 (7.5%) for isolated mitral valve replacement, 30 of 169 (17.5%, p = 0.001) for mitral replacement plus coronary bypass, 49 of 528 (9%) for the bioprosthetic valve group, and 28 of 178 (16%) for the prosthetic disc valve group (p = 0.01). After the operation, 262 patients were in Functional Class I, 99 in Class II, and 18 in Class III. The long-term survival rate was significantly lower in patients who had an associated procedure (45% +/- 6%), who had mitral regurgitation rather than mitral stenosis (53% +/- 5% versus 67% +/- 4%) (p = 0.002), who were in Functional Class IV rather than Classes I to III (51% +/- 4% versus 70% +/- 4%) (p = 0.001), and who received a prosthetic disc valve rather than a bioprosthesis (40% +/- 6% versus 67% +/- 4%) (p = 0.001). Thromboembolic rates were significantly higher with prosthetic valves than with bioprosthetic valves (4.6% +/- 0.22% versus 2.4% +/- 0.5% per patient-year of follow-up), and the incidence of anticoagulant-related hemorrhage was significantly higher in the prosthetic valve group (1.65% versus 0.43% per patient-year). Primary valve dysfunction was significantly more common in the bioprostheses (1.23% versus 0.40% per patient-year).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)