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.     

Discrepancies Between Labeled and Actual Dimensions of Prosthetic Valves and Sizers

A bstract Background and aims : The hemodynamic performance of a mechanical or stented bioprosthetic valve is primarily determined by the diameter of its orifice. Thus, in aortic or mitral valve replacement, assessment of the native annular size and selection of the correspondingly sized prosthetic valve is necessary to achieve maximum hemodynamic performance. The purpose of this study was to determine the actual dimensions of aortic and mitral valve sizers and their corresponding prostheses, and to determine whether they differed from their marked dimensions. Methods : Mechanical and stented bioprosthetic valves and sizers were obtained from the manufacturers (CarboMedics, St. Jude, Medtronic-Hall, Starr-Edwards, Carpentier-Edwards, and Medtronic-Hancock), and the diameters were measured. Results : For the mechanical models, both aortic and mitral sizers were larger than their marked size by 0.5 mm to 1.0 mm. The aortic valves were all smaller than their corresponding sizers, but the relationship of the mitral valves to corresponding sizers varied with the manufacturer. For the bioprosthetic models the aortic and mitral sizers were true to marked size, the aortic valves were close to marked size and the mitral valves were smaller than marked size. Conclusions : These differences make optimal sizing difficult at best, particularly if more than one manufacturers' product is used in an institution. These differences may or may not impact valve performance in an individual surgeon's hands. However, the wide range of variations across prosthetic type and manufacturer obligate the surgeon to be aware of these variances to achieve maximum hemodynamic performance for each patient.     

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.     

Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valve Replacement in Patients with Infective Endocarditis

During the 5-year period, 1979-1984, at the Texas Heart Institute, 4,598 patients underwent cardiac valve replacement procedures of which 185 were for acute infective endocarditis. Staphylococcus and streptococcus accounted for 80% of the cases and congestive heart failure was a leading indication in 63%. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the recurrence of endocarditis dependent upon whether the patient had an Ionescu-Shiley bioprosthetic pericardial valve or a mechanical valve (St. Jude Medical). Actuarial freedom from both early and late reoperation was higher for prosthetic valves than bioprosthetic valve patients. We conclude that mechanical valves are the valves of choice in acute infective endocarditis which apparently is the results of less biologic tissue available for exposure to infection by the offending organisms.     

An eight-year experience with porcine bioprosthetic cardiac valves

A total of 589 porcine bioprostheses were implanted in 509 patients from January, 1976, through December, 1983. Of the valves implanted, 390 were Hancock and 199 were Carpentier-Edwards. A total of 1,633 patient-years was accrued, with a mean follow-up of 38 months per patient. Two hundred eight patients had aortic valve replacement, 209 had mitral valve replacement, and 79 had multiple valve replacements, of which 46 were aortic and mitral replacements. The mortality for isolated aortic valve replacement was 5.8%; for isolated mitral replacement, 8.6%, and for all patients, 10.9%. Late mortality was 3.9% per patient-year. The actuarial survival rate at 5 years was 79% for aortic, 68% for mitral, and 76% for aortic-mitral valve replacement. There were 12 thromboembolic events (0.73% per patient-year). Two episodes occurred in patients with an aortic bioprosthesis, nine in patients with a porcine mitral valve, and one in a patient with mitral and tricuspid bioprosthetic valves. The probability of remaining free of thromboembolism at 5 years was 99% for the group having aortic valve replacement, 93% for those having mitral replacement, and 100% for the group having aortic-mitral valve replacements. Thirteen episodes of endocarditis occurred (0.8% per patient-year). Seven of the 13 patients died as a direct result of endocarditis. The probability of remaining free of prosthetic endocarditis at 5 years was 97% for the aortic valve replacement group, 95% for the mitral group, and 97% for the aortic-mitral group. There were 20 instances of xenograft failure (1.2% per patient-year). The probability of remaining free of valve failure at 5 years was 96% for the aortic valve replacement group, 93% for the mitral group, and 93% for the aortic-mitral replacement group. Primary tissue failure of a prosthesis occurred in seven patients, all with Hancock valves (0.43% per patient-year). As yet there has been no primary tissue failure of the Carpentier-Edwards prosthesis. There also appears to be a lower incidence of thromboembolism (Edwards, 0.3% per patient-year; Hancock, 0.8% per patient-year) and endocarditis (Edwards, 0.6% per patient-year; Hancock, 1.0% per patient-year). The low incidence of complications with the porcine bioprosthetic valve, especially the Carpentier-Edwards, encourages us to recommend its continued use, especially in situations in which anticoagulation is contraindicated.     

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.     

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.     

Long-term results of porcine bioprosthetic heterograft; a 13-years' experience

One hundred and ninety-four patients underwent valve replacements with the glutaraldehyde-preserved porcine bioprostheses (133 Hancock valves, 39 Angell-Shiley valves, 22 Carpentier-Edwards valves and 3 other valves) from 1974 through 1979. There were 105 women and 89 men, whose age ranged 18 to 62 (mean 38.8) years. One hundred and eighty-two patients had mitral bioprosthetic valve replacement (BVR)s, of which 52 had combined aortic mechanical valve replacements, 8 had aortic BVR's, 3 had tricuspid BVR's and 3 had multi-BVR's. Operative mortality was 10.8%. Only one patient was lost to follow-up. Cumulative duration of follow-up is 1421 patient-years. Linearized rate of anticoagulant related hemorrhage, thromboembolism (TE), prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE), primary tissue failure (PTF) and valve dysfunction (VD) were 0.07, 1.62, 0.49, 2.74 and 3.66% per patient-year. Actuarial freedom from TE, PVE, PTF and VD were 87.0 +/- 2.7%, 95.6 +/- 1.5%, 65.2 +/- 4.9% and 56.9 +/- 5.6% at 13 years. Actuarial survival rate was 67.4 +/- 4.0% at 13 years. Long term follow-up after valve replacement with porcine bioprosthetic valve confirms low thrombogenicity. But primary tissue failure was the chief cause of valve dysfunction and represent a major problem. At this time, we are going to use porcine bioprosthetic valve in the selected patients, that is in the situations in which anticoagulation is contraindicated.     

心脏瓣膜术后心室辅助治疗

目的 总结瓣膜病变术后重症心衰病人置入心室辅助(VADs)装置时,心脏瓣膜或人工瓣膜处理方法及围术期抗凝管理的经验.方法 回顾1994年1月到2008年6月,宾夕法尼亚大学附属医院心脏中心157例置入VADs病人中,10例为瓣膜术后重症心衰者.对于二尖瓣和三尖瓣病变,无论成形或置换,置入VADs时均未处理原瓣膜或人工瓣膜(环).5例主动脉瓣病变病例置入VADs时,2例用生物瓣膜取代了原机械瓣膜,1例未处理原来生物瓣膜,1例未处理原机械瓣膜,1例取出机械瓣膜,用牛心包封闭主动脉根部.结果 所有病人置入VADs术后应用抗凝治疗.10例病人中,停VAD出院和VAD姑息治疗各1例;转心脏移植4例;4例死亡,3例为多器官衰竭,1例为血栓栓塞事件.结论 瓣膜病变术后置入VADs总的生存率是60%,与非瓣膜病心衰病人置入VADs相比,未增加手术风险.

Abstract：

Objective An increasing number of patients requiring ventricular assist devices (VAD) have had previous valvular corrections,including valve repair,and valve replacement with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves.The operative and peri-operative management of these patients has been varied.Methods A retrospective study of VADs between Jan 1994 and June 2008 revealed 10 patients with previous prosthetic valves requiring management during and after VAD placement.Three patients were supported post-cardiotomy after valve surgery.Two patients were supported due to cardiogenic shock postopera-tively.Four patients were supported as a bridge to transplantation.One patient was supported as a destination therapy.Results The mitral valve was left untreated during VAD implantation regardless of valve repair or replacement.For aortic valves,the mechanical aortic valve was replaced with tissue valve in two patients and left untreated in one case.One patient had tricuspid valve repair previously and was left untouched.All patients with prosthetic valves in aortic,mitral and tricuspid position during VAD support received anticoagulation therapy.There were 4 deaths,and 4 went on to transplantation.One patient weaned from VAD and discharge from hospital.One patient received HeartMate Ⅰ as destination therapy.The most common causes of death were multisystem organ failure and sepsis.One patient had a thromboembolic event.Conclusion The survival rate of 60% is encouraging when compared to overall survival rates.The most common cause of death was multisystem organ failure.Patients with prosthetic valves may be safely managed during VAD support.     

Incidence and risk factors of prosthetic valve endocarditis

To study the incidence and risk factors of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE) we followed 99.5% of 912 patients who had valve replacements from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 1985 for 1-6 (mean 3) years. PVE occurred in 27 patients (2.96% or 0.98% per patient-year). The incidence of PVE in the aortic position (3.9%) was significantly higher than in the mitral position (1.5%): chi-square = 6.1, P less than 0.025. PVE developed in 19 of 329 patients with bioprostheses (5.8%), and in 8 of 583 patients with mechanical valves (1.4%): chi-square = 14.48, P less than 0.005). Actuarially at 5-year follow-up, 90.7% +/- 2.16% of the bioprosthetic group and 98.4% +/- 0.56% of the mechanical valve group was free of PVE (P less than 0.001). Antecedent endocarditis increased both the incidence and relative risk of PVE 7-fold compared to patients without antecedent endocarditis (chi-square = 32.0, P less than 0.0001). Bioprosthetic valve replacement in infective endocarditis increased the risk of PVE 12-fold compared to valve replacement by mechanical prostheses. In conclusion: in the order of importance, antecedent endocarditis, bioprostheses and aortic position are risk factors in the development of PVE. Bioprostheses implanted in patients with antecedent endocarditis further enhance the risk of PVE.     

Risk of Reoperative Valve Replacement for Failed Mitral and Aortic Bioprostheses

Background. One factor influencing the choice of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves is reoperation for bioprosthetic valve failure. To define its operative risk, we reviewed our results with valve reoperation for bioprosthetic valve failure.

Methods. Records of 400 consecutive patients having reoperative mitral, aortic, or mitral and aortic bioprosthetic valve replacement from January 1985 to March 1997 were reviewed.

Results. Reoperations were for failed bioprosthetic mitral valves in 219 patients, failed aortic valves in 153 patients, and failed aortic and mitral valves in 28 patients. Including 26 operations (6%) for acute endocarditis, 153 operations (38%) were nonelective. One hundred nine patients (27%) had other valves repaired or replaced, and 72 (18%) had coronary bypass grafting. The incidence of death in the mitral, aortic, and double-valve groups was respectively, 15 (6.8%), 12 (7.8%), and 4 (14.3%); and the incidence of prolonged postoperative hospital stay (>14 days) was, respectively, 57 (26.0%), 41 (26.8%), and 8 (28.6%). Only 7 of 147 patients (4.8%) having elective, isolated, first-time valve reoperation died. Multivariable predictors (p < 0.05) of hospital death were age greater than 65 years, male sex, renal insufficiency, and nonelective operation; and predictors of prolonged stay were acute endocarditis, renal insufficiency, any concurrent cardiac operation, and elevated pulmonary artery systolic pressure.

Conclusions. Reoperative bioprosthetic valve replacement can be performed with acceptable mortality and hospital stay. The best results are achieved with elective valve replacement, without concurrent cardiac procedures.     

Ventricular assist device in patients with prosthetic heart valves

Ventricular assist device (VAD) support inpatients with a prosthetic heart valve had previously been considered a relative contraindication due to an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. We report our clinical experience of VAD implantation in patients with prosthetic heart valves, including both mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. The clinical records of 133 consecutive patients who underwent VAD implantation at a single institution from January 2002 through June 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Six of these patients had a prosthetic valve in place at the time of device implantation. Patient demographics,operative characteristics, and postoperative complications were reviewed.Of the six patients,four were male.The mean age was 57.8 years (range 35–66 years). The various prosthetic cardiac valves included a mechanical aortic valve (n = 2), a bioprosthetic aortic valve (n = 3), and a mechanical mitral valve (n = 1).The indications for VAD support included bridge to transplantation (n = 2), bridge to recovery (n = 1), and postcardiotomy ventricular failure(n = 3). Three patients underwent left ventricular assist device placement and three received a right ventricular assist device. Postoperatively, standard anticoagulation management began with a heparin infusion (if possible)followed by oral anticoagulation.The 30-day mortality was50% (3/6). The mean duration of support among survivors was 194.3 days (range 7–369 days) compared with 16.0 days(range 4–29 days) for nonsurvivors. Of the three survivors,two were successfully bridged to heart transplantation and one recovered native ventricular function.Among the three nonsurvivors,acute renal failure developed in each case, and two developed heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. This study suggests that VAD placement in patients with a prosthethic heart valve, either mechanical or bioprosthetic,appears to be a reasonable option.     

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.     

The TTK chitra heart valve—A single centre experience with midterm results

Background The Chitra TTK heart valve has been in use at G.K.N.M. Hospital, Coimbatore, as the valve of choice. Initially this valve was used as part of a multi-centric trial and later it was the valve of choice in our institution. Methods Between December 1992 and July 1998, a total of 152 Chitra valves were implanted and these form the basis of this study. There were 65 aortic and 64 mitral implants and the rest were double valves. Results There was one early death due to infective endocarditis. There were 7 late deaths, 3 in aortic group (mean interval after surgery being 18.6 months), 3 in mitral group (interval of 8.6 months) and 1 in double valve group (interval of 7 months). The cause of the late deaths included endocarditis in 2 patients and choked valve in 2 patients. In the rest, the cause of death could not be ascertained. The remaining 144 patients were followed up (a total of 622 patient years of follow-up) with clinical and echocardiographic evaluation. There were 11 patients (7.2%) with thrombo-embolic episodes, 5 of whom had major events and the rest were minor with a linearized rate of 1.8 percent patient year. Haemodynamic studies in postoperative patients were comparable to other prosthetic valves. The thrombo-embolism free survival was 82% at 5 years. The actuarial survival was 78% at 5 years. Conclusion The Chitra valve is comparable to other mechanical valves     

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.     

Aortic valve replacement for active infectious endocarditis in 108 patients. A comparison of freehand allograft valves with mechanical prostheses and bioprostheses.

A total of 108 patients hospitalized with active (acute) endocarditis on either a native aortic valve (n = 66) or a previously inserted replacement device (n = 42) underwent aortic valve replacement because they were too ill for hospital discharge. A nonstented aortic allograft valve was used in 78 patients and prosthetic (mechanical or bioprosthetic) valves in 30 patients. The survival rate was 82% at 1 months, 73% at 1 year, 64% at 5 years, and 36% at 15 years. It was better in patients with native valve endocarditis than prosthetic valve endocarditis. The incremental risk factors for death in the early phase postoperatively were older age at operation, higher New York Heart Association functional class, and a larger number of previous aortic valve procedures. There were 13 episodes of recurrent endocarditis, giving an actuarial freedom of 80% at 10 years. The hazard function for recurrent endocarditis had only a low constant phase when allograft valves were used, which contrasted with the existence of a high peaking early phase (in addition to the constant phase) when prosthetic devices were used. No risk factors for recurrent endocarditis were found in patients receiving a prosthesis, and "localized" versus "extensive" endocarditis was the only risk factor when an allograft was used. Reoperation was performed in 24 patients for a variety of reasons, and freedom from reoperation was 61% at 10 years. It is concluded that the allograft valve is the valve of choice when aortic valve replacement is required for active endocarditis.     

Management of Prosthetic Valves during Ventricular Assist Device Implantation

Abstract Background: An increasing number of patients requiring ventricular assist devices (VAD) have had previous valvular corrections, including valve repair and valve replacement with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves. The operative and peri‐operative management of these patients has been varied. Methods: A retrospective study of VADs between January 1994 and June 2008 revealed 10 patients with previous prosthetic valves requiring management during and after VAD placement. Three patients were supported postcardiotomy after valve surgery. Two patients were supported due to cardiogenic shock postoperatively. Four patients were supported as a bridge to transplantation. One patient was supported as a destination therapy (DT). Results: The mitral, valve was left untreated during VAD implantation regardless of valve repair or replacement. For aortic valves, the mechanical aortic valve was replaced with tissue valve in two patients and left untreated in one case. One patient had tricuspid valve repair previously and was left untouched. All patients with prosthetic valves in aortic, mitral and tricuspid position during VAD support received anticoagulation therapy. There were four deaths, and four went on to transplantation. One patient was weaned from VAD and discharged from the hospital. One patient received HeartMate I as DT. The most common causes of death were multisystem organ failure (MSOF) and sepsis. One patient had a thromboembolic event. Conclusions: The survival rate of 60% is encouraging when compared to overall survival rates. The most common cause of death was MSOF. Patients with prosthetic valves may be safely managed during VAD support. (J Card Surg 2010;25:601‐605)     

Redo aortic root replacement: experience with 31 patients

BACKGROUND: Aortic root re-replacement is being performed with increased frequency. Limited information is available regarding the surgical approaches and clinical outcomes of this reoperation. METHODS: Between May 1980 and May 1999, 31 patients (mean age, 45 +/- 15 years) underwent redo composite replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta. Indications for reoperation were prosthetic valve endocarditis in 12 patients (39%), failed biological valve in 17 (55%), and false aneurysm in 2 (6%). At reoperation, mechanical valves were implanted in 24 patients and biologic valves in 7. All patients with endocarditis had annular abscess and required reconstruction of the left ventricular outflow tract before implantation of a new valved conduit. Mechanical valves were used in 24 patients, aortic homograft in 4, and bioprosthetic valves in 3. The coronary button technique was used to reimplant the coronary arteries whenever possible. Extension of one or both coronary arteries with a short segment of saphenous vein or a synthetic graft was used in 16 patients (52%). The aortic arch was replaced in 7 patients (23%). RESULTS: There was one operative death (3%) because of rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. The mean follow-up was 47 +/- 46 months and was 100% complete. There were five late deaths (16%), three of which were cardiac related. The actuarial survival was 71% +/- 12% at 5 years. Three patients experienced recurrent prosthetic valve endocarditis 4 months to 8 years after operation. The 8-year freedom from endocarditis for patients operated on for endocarditis was 82% +/- 11% compared with 100% for those operated on for other reasons (p = 0.1). At the last follow-up, 21 of 25 survivors (84%) were in New York Heart Association functional classes I or II, and 4 were in class III. CONCLUSIONS: Redo aortic root replacement can be performed with good early and late results. Patients operated on for prosthetic root endocarditis may have an increased risk of recurrent late endocarditis.     

Double valve endocarditis

Background. There are little data concerning surgical outcomes in patients with native valve endocarditis affecting both the aortic and mitral valves.

Methods. From 1977 to 1998, 54 patients had simultaneous aortic and mitral valve grafting for native valve endocarditis. In 78%, mitral valve involvement was limited to the anterior leaflet, suggesting a jet lesion from the aortic valve. Surgical strategies included 31 valve repairs and valve replacement with mechanical (34), bioprosthetic (34), or allograft (9) prostheses. Three hundred twenty-five patient-years of follow-up were available for analysis (mean 6.0 ± 4.8 years).

Results. There were no hospital deaths. Ten-year survival was 73%. Ten-year freedom from recurrent endocarditis was 84%, with risk peaking at 3 months, followed by a constant risk of 1.3%/yr. Choice of valvar procedure did not influence mortality or reinfection risk.

Conclusions. The most common pattern of double valve infection was a jet lesion on the anterior mitral leaflet. Surgical treatment has late survival and freedom from reinfection similar to those of patients with single heart valve infection.     

Advantage of autograft and homograft valve replacement for complex aortic valve endocarditis

Background. There are advantages to using homografts and autografts as aortic valve replacements, particularly in patients with infective endocarditis. To better define these advantages, we reviewed our 13-year experience with the surgical management of infective endocarditis involving the aortic valve and root.

Methods. From 1986 through 1998, 81 adults with aortic valve endocarditis underwent valve replacement (AVR). The mean age of the 65 men and 16 women was 44 ± 14 years. Sixty-three (78%) patients had active endocarditis at the time of operation. Non-native valve endocarditis was present in 29 (36%) patients, in 9 of whom the infection was a recurrence. Aortic valve replacements were performed with 46 homografts (homo-AVR), 25 autografts (Ross-AVR), and 10 prosthetic valves (prosth-AVR). Among Ross-AVR and homo-AVR patients, 11 required mitral valve replacement or repair (homo-Ross DVR). Follow-up was 90% complete within 2 years of the end of the study with a mean of 3.7 ± 3.4 years.

Results. Early mortality was 16% (13 of 81 patients). This was 12% (3 of 25 patients) for Ross-AVR, 17% (8 of 46 patients) for homo-AVR, and 20% (2 of 10 patients) for prosth-AVR. Overall late mortality was 10% (7 of 68 patients) with a valve-related late mortality of 7% (5 of 68 patients). Actuarial survival at 5 years was 88% ± 9% in Ross-AVR, 69% ± 11% in homo-AVR, and 29% ± 22% in prosth-AVR (p = 0.03). Endocarditis recurred in 12.5% (1 of 8 patients) with prosth-AVR and 3% (2 of 60 patients) in homo-Ross AVR.

Conclusions. Valve replacement in the presence of native and prosthetic endocarditis remains a formidable challenge. Autografts and homografts are the preferred replacement aortic valves for these patients even if concomitant mitral valve replacement is required, and risk of valve-related death or recurrent endocarditis is low at medium-term follow-up.