Search

Objectives: Recent evidence indicated that the use of a bioprosthesis in young patients at first-time aortic valve replacement (AVR) is associated with an increased reoperation risk, but not with an increase in long-term mortality, when compared with the use of a mechanical valve. However, at reoperative AVR, follow-up data by prosthesis type have been lacking from the literature. Therefore, we examined long-term survival and valve-related complications according to the type of prosthesis used at reoperative AVR., Methods: We studied 437 patients who underwent reoperative AVR, at a mean age of 58.6 ± 14.2 years, for failure of a previously implanted aortic valve prosthesis. Thirty-day mortality at reoperative AVR was 6% (n = 27). A bioprosthesis was used in 135 (31%) patients. Patients were subsequently followed up for a mean of 7.6 ± 6.8 years after reoperative AVR., Results: The use of a bioprosthesis at reoperative AVR was not associated with impaired survival on adjusted analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.8 ± 0.4; P = .6). Freedom from thromboembolism, and endocarditis were similar between valve types (both P > .05); however, late postoperative major hemorrhage occurred only in patients who received a mechanical prosthesis at reoperative AVR. Risk factors for third-time AVR included the use of a bioprosthesis (HR, 14.0) and younger age (HR, 1.05 per decreasing year) at reoperative AVR (both P < .001). Thirty-day mortality of third-time AVR was 4% (n = 1/27)., Conclusions: At reoperative AVR, the use of a bioprosthesis is associated with equivalent long-term survival compared with a mechanical prosthesis. Patients who receive a bioprosthesis at reoperative AVR are less likely to experience major hemorrhage but more likely to require third-time AVR, albeit with an acceptable third-time perioperative mortality risk. Therefore, the patient's informed preferences regarding prosthesis choice should prevail, even in a reoperative context., (Copyright © 2012 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence supporting the use of bioprostheses for heart valve replacement in young adults is accumulating. However, reoperation data, which may help guide clinical decision making in young patients, remains poorly defined in the literature., Methods and Results: We examined the need for reoperation in 3975 patients who underwent first-time bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n=3152) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) (n=823). There were 895 patients below the age of 60 years at bioprosthesis implant (AVR, n=636; MVR, n=259). The median interval to reoperation of contemporary, stented aortic bioprostheses was 7.74 years (95% CI 7.28 to 9.97 years) in patients less than 40 years, and 12.93 years (95% CI 11.10 to 15.76 years) in patients between 40 and 60 years of age. Multivariable risk factors associated with reoperation following bioprosthetic AVR include age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94 per year, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.96, P<0.001) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.99, P=0.04). The median interval to reoperation of contemporary mitral bioprostheses was 8.11 years (95% CI 5.79 to 16.50 years) in patients less than 40 years, and 10.14 years (95% CI 8.64 to 11.14 years) in patients between 40 and 60 years of age. As for AVR, age (HR 0.96 per year, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98, P<0.001) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.93, P=0.03) were associated with decreased reoperation risk following bioprosthetic MVR., Conclusions: These data constitute clinically relevant age-specific prognostic information regarding reoperation in young patients, who may wish to select a bioprosthesis at initial left heart valve replacement.

Objectives: Long-term thromboembolic and hemorrhagic outcomes after mechanical valve replacement have been well described; however, few studies have described these outcomes after valve replacement with the On-X mechanical prosthesis (On-X Life Technologies, Inc, Austin, Tex)., Methods: Between 2003 and 2008, 737 patients underwent either aortic valve replacement (n = 400), mitral valve replacement (n = 282), or double-valve replacement (n = 55). Longitudinal performance, freedom evaluation, and risk analysis were assessed with regard to major thromboembolism and hemorrhage. Risk modeling was performed with 16 variables inclusive of age, atrial fibrillation, concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting, New York Heart Association class, and ventricular dysfunction., Results: Early mortality was 2.5% (n = 10) for aortic valve replacement and 3.2% (n = 9) for mitral valve replacement. Late mortality for aortic valve replacement was 4.8% per patient-year and 6.0% per patient-year for mitral valve replacement. Five-year freedom from major thromboembolism was 96.5% ± 1.2% for aortic valve replacement and 97.7% ± 0.9% for mitral valve replacement. Five-year freedom from hemorrhage was 93.6% ± 1.8% for aortic valve replacement and 95.7% ± 1.5% for mitral valve replacement. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was predictive of major thromboembolism after aortic valve replacement (hazard ratio, 5.3; P = .02) and antithrombotic hemorrhage after mitral valve replacement (hazard ratio, 4.7; P = .03). No other independent predictors of major thromboembolism or hemorrhage were identified. One thrombosed mitral prosthesis was observed after deliberate discontinuation of anticoagulation. The major thromboembolic events occurred with variation of international normalized ratio levels inclusive of subtherapeutic levels. The majority of hemorrhagic events occurred with high international normalized ratio levels., Conclusions: The On-X mechanical prosthesis provides favorable intermediate-term results with regard to major thromboembolism and hemorrhage., (Copyright © 2010 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Bioprosthesis structural valve deterioration (SVD) is an incompletely understood process involving the accumulation of calcium and lipids. Whether this process could be delayed with lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is currently unknown. The purpose of this observational study was to evaluate if an association exists between early LLT and a slowing of bioprosthesis SVD, with a view to designing a prospective trial., Methods: We followed 1193 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with contemporary bioprostheses between 1990 and 2006 (mean follow-up 4.5+/-3.1 years, maximum 17.3 years). Of these patients, 150 received LLT (including statins) early after surgery. Prosthetic valve haemodynamics on echocardiography and freedom from re-operation for SVD were compared between patients who did and did not receive postoperative LLT., Results: After bioprosthetic implantation, the progression of peak and mean trans-prosthetic gradients during echocardiographic follow-up (mean 3.3 years) was equivalent between patients treated with and without LLT (peak increase: 0.9+/-7.7 vs 1.1+/-10.9 mmHg, LLT vs no LLT, P=0.87; mean increase: 0.8+/-4.1 vs 0.2+/-5.9 mmHg, LLT vs no LLT, P=0.38). The annualised linear rate of gradient progression following valve replacement was also similar between groups (peak increase per year: 2.0+/-12.1 vs 1.0+/-12.9 mmHg per year, LLT vs no LLT, P=0.52; mean increase per year: 0.5+/-2.2 vs 0.6+/-6.0 mmHg per year, LLT vs no LLT, P=0.94). The incidence of mild or greater aortic insufficiency on the most recent echocardiogram was comparable (16.3% vs 13.8%, LLT vs no LLT, P=0.44), and there was no difference in the 10-year freedom from re-operation for SVD between the two groups [98.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 91.9%, 99.8%) vs 95.4% (95% CI 90.5%, 97.9%), LLT vs no LLT, P=0.72]., Conclusions: In this observational study, there was no association demonstrated between early postoperative LLT and a slowing of bioprosthesis SVD. With the excellent durability of bioprostheses in the current era, a prospective randomised trial of statin therapy to prevent bioprosthetic SVD does not appear to be justified, let alone feasible., (Copyright 2009 European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes in women and men after valve replacement surgery., Design: Observational study., Setting: Postoperative aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR)., Patients: 3118 patients (1261 women, 1857 men) who underwent AVR or MVR between 1976 and 2006 (2255 AVR, 863 MVR), with mean follow-up of 5.6 (4.5) years., Main Outcome Measures: The independent effect of gender on the risk of long-term complications (reoperation, stroke and death) after valve replacement surgery using multivariate actuarial methods., Results: After implantation of an aortic valve bioprosthesis, women had a significantly lower rate of reoperation compared to men (comorbidity-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.4; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.2 to 0.9). In contrast, if an aortic mechanical prosthesis had been implanted, women were more at risk for late stroke compared to men (HR 1.7; CI 1.1 to 2.7). After adjustment for age and co-morbidities, women had significantly better long-term survival compared to men after bioprosthetic AVR (HR 0.5; CI 0.3 to 0.6), but there was no survival difference between genders after mechanical AVR. Trends existed towards better survival for women after bioprosthetic MVR (HR 0.6; CI 0.4 to 1.0) and mechanical MVR (HR 0.8; CI 0.5 to 1.1)., Conclusion: The long-term outcomes after valve replacement surgery differ between women and men. Although women have more late strokes after valve replacement, they undergo fewer reoperations and have better overall long-term survival compared to men.

Background: Aortic root enlargement (ARE) at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an often proposed but still unproven technique to prevent prosthesis-patient mismatch. To evaluate the risks and benefits of ARE, we examined the outcomes of patients with small aortic roots who underwent AVR with or without the use of ARE., Methods: Patients (n = 712) with small aortic roots who underwent AVR were prospectively followed (follow-up, 3,730 patient-years; mean, 5.2 +/- 4.1 years). All patients had a small aortic annulus that would have led to the insertion of an aortic prosthesis of 21 or less in size. Multivariate techniques were used to compare outcomes between patients who underwent AVR alone (n = 540) versus AVR plus ARE (n = 172)., Results: Aortic cross-clamp times were 9.9 minutes longer in the AVR+ARE group (p = 0.0002). There were no differences in reopening or stroke rates or perioperative mortality (all p = not significant). All patients in the AVR-alone group received size 19 to 21 prostheses, whereas 51% of the AVR+ARE patients received size 23 prostheses. Postoperative gradients were reduced (p < 0.01) and indexed effective orifice areas were larger (p < 0.0001) in the AVR+ARE group. While the incidence of postoperative prosthesis-patient mismatch (indexed effective orifice area < or = 0.85 cm2/m2) was lower in the AVR+ARE group (p < 0.0001), the presence of mismatch did not significantly impact long-term outcomes after surgery. The ARE was associated with a trend toward better freedom from late congestive heart failure (p = 0.19), but not an improvement in long-term survival (p = 0.81)., Conclusions: For patients with small aortic roots, ARE at the time of AVR is a safe procedure that reduces postoperative gradients and the incidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch. However, ARE does not appreciably improve long-term clinical outcomes.

Background-Evidence supporting the use of bioprostheses for heart valve replacement in young adults is accumulating. However, reoperation data, which may help guide clinical decision making in young patients, remains poorly defined in the literature. Methods and Results-We examined the need for reoperation in 3975 patients who underwent first-time bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR) (n=3152) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) (n=823). There were 895 patients below the age of 60 years at bioprosthesis implant (AVR, n=636; MVR, n=259). The median interval to reoperation of contemporary, stented aortic bioprostheses was 7.74 years (95% CI 7.28 to 9.97 years) in patients less than 40 years, and 12.93 years (95% CI 11.10 to 15.76 years) in patients between 40 and 60 years of age. Multivariable risk factors associated with reoperation following bioprosthetic AVR include age (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94 per year, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.96, P<0.001) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.99, P=0.04). The median interval to reoperation of contemporary mitral bioprostheses was 8.11 years (95% CI 5.79 to 16.50 years) in patients less than 40 years, and 10.14 years (95% CI 8.64 to 11.14 years) in patients between 40 and 60 years of age. As for AVR, age (HR 0.96 per year, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.98, P<0.001) and concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.93, P=0.03) were associated with decreased reoperation risk following bioprosthetic MVR. Conclusions-These data constitute clinically relevant age-specific prognostic information regarding reoperation in young patients, who may wish to select a bioprosthesis at initial left heart valve replacement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]