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.     

Early clinical experience with the On-X prosthetic heart valve

The study aimed to assess the performance of the On-X valve (Medical Carbon Research Institute, Austin, TX). Between December 2000 and January 2003 On-X valves were implanted in 400 patients aged 19-85 years (mean: 55.6+/-16), 290 males and 210 females. There were 120 cases of aortic valve replacement (AVR), 258 mitral valve replacement (MVR) and 22 combined aortic and mitral valve replacement (DVR). Additional procedures were performed in 144 patients. Patients were followed up prospectively at 3- to 6-month intervals. Mean follow-up was 38.4+/-11.8 months (maximum 55.6 months). Overall hospital mortality was 3.5%. Freedom from adverse events at 4 years in the study were as follows: thromboembolism, 99.1% for AVR, 98.3% for MVR and 94.7% for DVR patients; thrombosis, 100% for AVR, 99.2% for MVR and 94.7% for DVR; bleeding events, 99.1% for AVR, 99.2% for MVR and 88.8% for DVR; prosthetic endocarditis, 98.2% for AVR, 99.2% for MVR and 94.7% for DVR. Overall survival at 4 years was 92+/-1%. At echocardiographical examination within 1 year of the AVR, the mean aortic valve gradient was 12.8+/-6, 10.3+/-3, 9.0+/-4, 8.3+/-3, and 6.2+/-3 mmHg for 19, 21, 23, 25, 27/29 mm valve sizes, respectively. MVR mean gradient was 4.9+/-2, 4.5+/-1.2 and 4.0+/-0.8 mmHg for 25, 27/29, 31/33 mm valve sizes, respectively. On-X valve is a highly effective mechanical valve substitute with low morbidity and mortality and good functional results.     

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.     

Comparison of the effects of aortic valve replacement using 19-mm Carpentier-Edwards Perimount bioprosthesis and 19-mm Medtronic Mosaic bioprosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Short (< or =3 months)- and middle (> or =4 months)-term results of aortic valve replacement (AVR) using 19-mm Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CEP) bioprosthetic valves and 19-mm Medtronic Mosaic (MM) bioprosthetic valves in patients with small aortic annulus were compared. PATIENTS AND METHODS: At our facility, AVR was performed using bioprostheses in 110 patients from April 1999 to March 2006. Of these patients, 40 were treated using 19-mm CEP (Group C), and 9 using 19-mm MM (Group M). Evaluation by inquiry, physical examination, and echocardiography was performed before, a short term after, and a middle term after surgery, and the effects of AVR were compared. RESULTS: The New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class grade showed improvements in both groups. The aortic valve peak pressure gradient was 29.8 +/- 10.1 mmHg in Group C and 53.8 +/- 17.3 mmHg in Group M, being higher in Group M, a middle term after surgery. However, the left ventricular mass index (LVMI) showed improvements in both groups compared with the values before surgery, and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was maintained. During the middle term after surgery, the frequency of cardiac events showed no significant difference between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In the patients treated with 19-mm MM, the aortic valve peak pressure gradient was higher than in those treated with 19-mm CEP, but acceptable improvements in the LVMI, maintenance of the LVEF, and avoidance of cardiac events were observed in both groups.     

Assessment of left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement--cardiovascular magnetic resonance versus M-mode echocardiography.

OBJECTIVE: In patients with aortic valve disease, the presence of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) carries a significant risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Regression of hypertrophy after aortic valve replacement (AVR) is associated with a reduction in risk. In general, M-mode echocardiography has been used for quantitative assessment of left ventricular mass (LVM) and regression, but this technique is believed to have limitations from which cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) does not suffer. The objective of this study therefore was to determine whether quantitative assessment of LVM and regression after AVR using the two techniques was comparable. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with aortic valve disease were studied before and 1 year after AVR. Transthoracic M-mode echocardiography and four different formulae were used to calculate left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and then compared with CMR measurements. RESULTS: Overall, correlation between the techniques for single measurement of LVMI was moderate (r-values from 0.64 to 0.69), with a tendency for overestimation by echocardiography; there was no agreement in degree of regression (r-values from 0.004 to 0.18). The Bland-Altman limits of agreement ranged from 85 to 131% for single measurement of LVMI, and 328-470% for regression. The change in LVMI with CMR was 43+/-28 g/m2, vs. 27 to 54+/-19 to 41 g/m2 using echocardiography. CONCLUSIONS: M-mode echocardiography does not provide reliable quantification of regression of LVH in individuals, and for accurate measurement CMR is superior. The use of CMR in future studies may reduce costs since fewer subjects are needed to accurately detect significant changes in LVMI after AVR.     

Impact of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch on intermediate-term outcome and regression of left ventricular mass following aortic valve replacement with mechanical prosthesis

BACKGROUND: The impact of aortic valve replacement (AVR) with prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on intermediate-term outcome and left ventricular mass (LVM) regression in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) was investigated. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients with AS (87 pure stenosis and 63 combined stenosis and regurgitation) were classified into a PPM group (n = 34, indexed effective orifice area (EOAI) >0.65 cm(2)/m(2) and < or =0.85 cm(2)/m(2); moderate PPM) and a non-PPM group (n = 116, EOAI > 0.85). Mean age, mean and peak aortic pressure gradient (PG) were not different between the groups (PPM, 99.7 +/- 37.2 and 54.9 +/- 23.2 mmHg; non-PPM, 95.9 +/- 29.2 and 54.4 +/- 16.0 mmHg). The absolute and relative regression in indexed left ventricular mass (LVMI) was estimated by preoperative and postoperative echocardiography (n = 98). RESULTS: Twelve patients died (valve-related death in 7) during 5 years of follow-up. Comparing the PPM and non-PPM groups, overall survival (78.7% vs. 87.8%) and survival free from valve-related death (96.8% vs. 92.1%) were not significantly different. New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improved in all patients and there were no patients in class III or IV. The postoperative mean PG was 14.6 +/- 6.1 mmHg in the PPM group and 9.4 +/- 3.8 mmHg in the non-PPM group (p = 0.0005), with an inverse correlation (r = -0.48, p < 0.0001) between EOAI and the postoperative mean PG. However, there was no significant difference in the absolute and relative LVMI regression between the two groups. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed and higher preoperative LVMI and mean aortic PG were independent predictors of greater LVMI regression after AVR. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate PPM does not appear to alter LVMI regression, NYHA class, or intermediate-term outcome in AS patients undergoing AVR with mechanical prostheses. In multivariate analysis, preoperative LVMI and mean aortic PG were important independent predictors of LVMI regression.     

Use of stentless xenografts in the aortic position: determinants of early and late outcome

BACKGROUND: Whether to perform a stentless aortic valve replacement (AVR) is not well established. Our aim was to determine the outcome after AVR with stentless xenograft valves. METHODS: Between 1996 and 2001, a total of 404 patients (mean age 70.4 years) underwent a stentless AVR by one surgeon in our unit. Concomitant procedures were performed in 132 patients (33%). Twenty patients (6.4%) had undergone previous AVR. Eleven types of stentless xenograft valves were implanted: Medtronic Freestyle in 221 patients (55%), Shelhigh in 55 (14%), Shelhigh composite conduit in 33 (8%), Sorin in 26 (6%), Cryolife O'Brien in 25 (6%), Aortech-Elan in 17 (4%), Edwards Prima in 14 (4%), Toronto SPV in 7 (2%), and other valves in 6 (1%). A subcoronary implantation technique was used in 302 cases (76%), complete root replacement in 62 (15%), and a modified Bentall-De Bono procedure in 33 (8%). Mean follow-up was 19.4 months (range, 1.2 to 60.6 months). RESULTS: Overall hospital mortality was 4.2%. This was 2.4% for isolated AVR, 3.6% for AVR and coronary artery bypass grafting, 5.5% for replacement of two or more valves, and 12% for the modified Bentall procedure. On multiple logistic regression redo cardiac operation (p = 0.0006), cardiogenic shock (p = 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction less than 0.30 (p = 0.01), modified Bentall procedure (p = 0.03), and endocarditis (p = 0.04) were predictors of in-hospital death. Five-year freedom from thromboembolism, hemorrhage, prosthetic endocarditis, structural valve deterioration, and reoperation was 97%, 99%, 99%, 98%, and 96%, respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival at 5 years was 88%. On Cox regression, cardiogenic shock (p = 0.001) and older age (p = 0.03) were adverse predictors of survival. At echocardiographic examination within 6 months from the operation, mean aortic valve gradients were 15 +/- 6 mm Hg, 12.8 +/- 3 mm Hg, 10.8 +/- 4 mm Hg, 9.3 +/- 3 mm Hg, 9.1 +/- 4 mm Hg, and 8.2 +/- 3 mm Hg for valve sizes of 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, and 29 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of several stentless valve designs facilitates the surgical treatment of diverse aortic valve or root diseases with encouraging early and mid-term results. Patients requiring concomitant procedures may also benefit from the excellent hemodynamic characteristics of a stentless valve. We consider stentless AVR the treatment of choice for patients older than 60 years and those having small aortic roots.     

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.     

Management of tricuspid valve insufficiency. Replacement with Hancock bioprosthesis or suture annuloplasty

Forty-seven patients who underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) or tricuspid annuloplasty (TA) combined with aortic (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) at Henry Ford Hospital, from 1971 to 1977 are reviewed. Thirty-three patients underwent TVR with a Hancock valve combined with MVR or AVR; hospital mortality was 30% (10 to 33) and was higher at the beginning of the series when smaller valves were used. No valve dysfunction has been seen with mean follow-up time of 36.7 months, ranging from 4 to 60 months. Good functional improvement was accomplished in all patients. Fourteen patients underwent TA; hospital mortality was 21% (3 of 14) with one late mortality (9%); good functional improvement was accomplished in all patients. However, one patient presented 11 months following surgery with tricuspid insufficiency after a period of improvement. For patients with severely deformed valves a large size Hancock valve is recommended. For insufficiency alone tricuspid annuloplasty is recommended.     

Implications of valve prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement; who tolerates and who does not?

Background The problem of Valve Prosthesis—Patient Mismatch (VP-PM) and small aortic annulus is closely related. Claims of this problem being negligible with modern prosthesis in smaller sizes have not yet been substantiated. The choice of the best prosthesis in the small aortic root is still an issue of debate. Materials and methods We sought to study 37 of the 42 patients of isolated aortic valve replacement, with mechanical prosthesis, with respect to improvement in the functional status, regression in the left ventricular hypertrophy and transprosthetic gradients. A total of 28 male and 9 female patients were followed up for 13.24±5.17 months. 36 of the patients had mild VP-PM as per the guidelines of Rahimtoola et al. Results All patients except 5 (13.51%) had a complete regression of their symptoms at 6 months following surgery. Five patients continue to have dysponea on exertion of variable grade. These patients had received size 19 valves. On comparing size 19, 21 and 23 valves, we found that the regression in peak systolic gradients and left ventricular mass across the aortic valve, following surgery was comparable among all three valve sizes However, the residual gradients and left ventricular mass across the size 19 prostheses were significantly higher than expected. Conclusions All patients in this study had VP-PM of varying severity. Among patients with mild VP-PM, patients with size 19 prosthesis manifested with symptoms and signs of VP-PM. In spite of having Mild VP-PM the performance of size 21 and 23 valves was found satisfactory.     

Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis with a Small Mechanical Prosthetic Valve

ABSTRACT Background: Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the only effective treatment for patients with aortic stenosis (AS), it is recognized that the use of small prosthetic valves due to a small aortic root often affects postoperative course after AVR. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of small prosthetic valves was a risk factor of AVR for AS. Methods: We compared various perioperative factors and operative outcomes between patients with a small mechanical prosthetic valve (small group) and patients with a large mechanical prosthetic valve (large group). Results: Early mortality was 0% in each group and the 5-year mortality was 25% in the small group and 10% in the large group. There were no significant differences in perioperative factors between the two groups. The small group patients were significantly older and smaller compared to the large group patients. The valve size was significantly correlated with age and BSA. Conclusions: The use of small mechanical prostheses was not a risk factor of AVR for AS when it was proportionate to the BSA even for elderly patients. AVR using a small mechanical prosthetic valve may be performed with good results in the short-and long-term.     

Impact of energy loss index on left ventricular mass regression after aortic valve replacement

Background

Recently, the energy loss index (ELI) has been proposed as a new functional index to assess the severity of aortic stenosis (AS). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of the ELI on left ventricular mass (LVM) regression in patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with mechanical valves.

Methods

A total of 30 patients with severe AS who underwent AVR with mechanical valves was studied. Echocardiography was performed to measure the LVM before AVR (pre-LVM) (n = 30) and repeated 12 months later (post-LVM) (n = 19). The ELI was calculated as [effective orifice area (EOA) × aortic cross sectional area]/(aortic cross sectional area ? EOA) divided by the body surface area. The LVM regression rate (%) was calculated as 100 × (post-LVM ? pre-LVM)/(pre-LVM). A cardiac event was defined as a composite of cardiac death and heart failure requiring hospitalization.

Results

LVM regressed significantly (245.1 ± 84.3 to 173.4 ± 62.6 g, P < 0.01) at 12 months after AVR. The LVM regression rate negatively correlated with the ELI (R = ?0.67, P < 0.01). By receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis, ELI <1.12 cm²/m² predicted smaller (<?30.0 %) LVM regression rates (area under the curve = 0.825; P = 0.030). Patients with ELI <1.12 cm²/m² had significantly lower cardiac event-free survival.

Conclusion

The ELI as well as the EOA index (EOAI) could predict LVM regression after AVR with mechanical valves. Whether the ELI is a stronger predictor of clinical events than EOAI is still unclear, and further large-scale study is necessary to elucidate the clinical impact of the ELI in patients with AVR.     

Aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis with a small mechanical prosthetic valve

BACKGROUND: Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) is the only effective treatment for patients with aortic stenosis (AS), it is recognized that the use of small prosthetic valves due to a small aortic root often affects postoperative course after AVR. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of small prosthetic valves was a risk factor of AVR for AS. METHODS: We compared various perioperative factors and operative outcomes between patients with a small mechanical prosthetic valve (small group) and patients with a large mechanical prosthetic valve (large group). RESULTS: Early mortality was 0% in each group and the 5-year mortality was 25% in the small group and 10% in the large group. There were no significant differences in perioperative factors between the two groups. The small group patients were significantly older and smaller compared to the large group patients. The valve size was significantly correlated with age and BSA. CONCLUSIONS: The use of small mechanical prostheses was not a risk factor of AVR for AS when it was proportionate to the BSA even for elderly patients. AVR using a small mechanical prosthetic valve may be performed with good results in the short- and long-term.     

Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenografts: follow-up of up to 6 years

The results of valve replacement with the Ionescu-Shiley pericardial xenograft compare favorably with results obtained with other bioprostheses. From March, 1977, to July, 1983, 497 Ionescu-Shiley pericardial valves were implanted in 463 patients at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. There were 292 patients who had aortic valve replacement (AVR), 140 with mitral valve replacement (MVR), 28 with double valve replacement, and 3 with triple valve replacement. The survivors were followed regularly. Actuarial analysis of late results indicates an expected survival of 71% at 6 years for patients who underwent AVR and 72% at 3 years for patients who had MVR. The only valve-related deaths were due to endocarditis, which occurred at a rate of 3.9% per patient-year for aortic valves and 0.6% per patient-year for mitral valves. Despite a low usage of formal anticoagulation, embolic complications occurred at a rate of 1.4% per patient-year for aortic valves and 4.0% per patient-year for mitral valves. Five valves were removed for intrinsic failure after 36 to 72 months of follow-up. New York Heart Association Functional Class improved an average of 1.28 classes per patient.     

Eight year experience with the CarboMedics bileaflet valvular prosthesis.

Two hundred and two patients (97 female and 105 male; mean age: 45. 5+/-9 years) received CarboMedics bileaflet valves during a period of eight years. Ninety-one patients received mitral, 72 aortic and 39 aortic+mitral valve prosthesis. Tricuspid plasty and coronary artery bypass surgery were the concomitant operations in 17 and 12 patients, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 24.7 months and the ratio was 91%. Overall operative mortality was 3.96% (8 patients); 2.78% for aortic valve replacement (AVR), 3.29% for mitral valve replacement (MVR) and 7.7% for double valve replacement (DVR). The late mortality rate was 2.89% for AVR, 2.2% for MVR and 8. 3% for DVR. The main cause of mortality was low cardiac output. The overall survival rate was 91.5% in 2 years. The actuarial freedom from thromboembolism in 2 years was 97% for AVR, 95% for MVR and 84% for DVR. No mortality due to heamorrhagic events was observed. CarboMedics prosthetic heart valves may be used satisfactorily with a low incidence of valve-related morbidity and mortality.     

Aortic valve replacement with concomitant aortoventriculoplasty in children and young adults: long-term follow-up

Sixteen patients (9 male, 7 female) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a Konno aortoventriculoplasty at the University of Nebraska Medical Center from August, 1976, to May, 1986. There was 1 early death (6%), but no operative deaths have occurred since 1977. There was 1 late death from unknown cause 51 months postoperatively. One patient has been lost to follow-up. Long-term follow-up of 14 patients was 923 months (mean, 66 months; range, 9 to 120 months). Of the 16 patients, 12 (75%) had had previous cardiovascular procedures. A total of thirty-five operations, including the aortoventriculoplasties, were done in the 16 patients. Of the aortic valves inserted, 11 were tissue valves (Carpentier-Edwards, 10; Ionescu-Shiley, 1) and 5 were mechanical valves (St. Jude, 3; Bj?rk-Shiley, 2). Patient age at the time of aortoventriculoplasty ranged from 2 years 3 months to 24 years (median, 11 years 8 months). Size of the aortic annulus ranged from 10 to less than 21 mm (median, 16 mm). Valves inserted ranged from 21 to 29 mm; 13 (81%) of them were 25 mm or larger. In 2 patients, degenerated tissue valves were replaced with mechanical valves after 110 and 33 months. At present, all patients are in New York Heart Association Functional Class I. One female patient married and delivered a normal child approximately five years after AVR with a Carpentier-Edwards valve plus aortoventriculoplasty; she never received anticoagulant medications. We conclude that AVR with a concomitant Konno aortoventriculoplasty can be safely performed in the pediatric and young-adult age groups with satisfactory results for up to ten years.     

Long-term follow-up after aortic valve replacement with a small aortic prosthesis.

Although aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an effective treatment for patients with aortic valvular disease, the implantation of a small aortic prosthesis may result in residual left ventricular outflow stenosis and transvalvular gradient. In this study, the outcome in the long-term period of patients treated with a small aortic prosthesis was analyzed retrospectively. Twenty-four patients with AVR were divided into two groups, group A and group B. Group A consisted of 16 patients with 21 mm-sized prosthetic valves, and group B consisted of 8 patients with 19 or 16 mm-sized prosthetic valves. There were no significant differences in preoperative cardiac function or operative procedure in the two groups. The mean follow-up period (months) was 55.0 in group A and 51.3 in group B. RESULTS: One patient died of cerebral infarction in group A. There were no significant differences in cardiothoracic ratio (CTR), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and left ventricular mass index (LVMI) between the two groups. Postoperative physical activity according to the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification showed no significant differences in the two groups. Despite using a small prostheses for AVR, the postoperative course was good in the long-term period, although careful follow-up is necessary.     

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.     

Prosthetic valve type for patients undergoing aortic valve replacement: a decision analysis

Background. In two large, randomized, clinical trials long-term survival after aortic valve replacement (AVR) was similar for patients receiving tissue and mechanical aortic heart valve prostheses. Higher bleeding rates among patients with mechanical valves, who must receive permanent oral anticoagulation to prevent thromboembolism, were offset by higher reoperation rates for valve degeneration among patients with tissue valves. Because the average age of patients undergoing AVR and clinical practices have changed considerably since the randomized clinical trials were conducted, we performed a decision analysis to reassess the optimal valve type for patients undergoing AVR.

Methods. We used a Markov state-transition model to simulate the occurrence of valve-related events and life expectancy for patients undergoing AVR. Probabilities of clinical events and mortality were derived from the randomized clinical trials and large follow-up studies.

Results. Although the two valve types were associated with similar life expectancy in 60-year-old patients (mean age of patients in the randomized clinical trials), tissue valves were associated with greater life expectancy than mechanical valves (10.7 versus 11.1 years) in 70-year-old patients (currently mean age of AVR patients). For 70-year-old patients, the effects of major bleeding complications (24%) with mechanical valves substantially outweighed those of reoperation for valve failure (12%) with tissue valves at 12 years. Of the clinical practice changes assessed, the recommended valve type was most sensitive to changes in bleeding rates with anticoagulation. However, bleeding rates would have to be 68% lower than those reported in the European randomized clinical trial to affect the recommended valve type for 70-year-old patients. Reoperation rates would have to be five times higher, and mortality rates at reoperation would have to be four times higher to affect the recommended valve type for 70-year-old patients.

Conclusions. Although mechanical valves are preferred for AVR patients less than 60 years old, most patients currently undergoing AVR are elderly and would benefit more from tissue valves.     

Clinical experience with omniscience and omnicarbon prosthetic heart valves

Omniscience valves were implanted in sixty-two patients. Twenty-eight of these patients underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR), 15 had mitral valve replacement (MVR) and 8 had aortic and mitral valve replacement (DVR). Post-operative events occurred in nine (5.9%/patient year) of the AVR group, in three (1.7%/patient year) of the MVR group and in three (5.4%/patient year) of the DVR group. The actuarial freedom from all events at five years in the AVR, MVR and DVR was 74 +/- 8%, 88 +/- 6%, 67 +/- 16%, respectively. Cardiac death occurred in four (2.5%/patient year) of the AVR, one (0.6%/patient year) of the MVR and two (3.6%/patient year) of the DVR. The freedom at five years in the AVR, MVR and DVR was 88 +/- 6%, 96 +/- 4%, and 77 +/- 14%, respectively. Valve-related complications were noted in four patients. Post-operative cerebral hemorrhage was seen in three of the AVR. Maximum opening angle of the Omniscience valve was 39.1 +/- 4.5 degrees at the aortic position and 44.6 +/- 9.7 degrees at the mitral position. Omnicarbon valves implanted in ninety-five patients, fifty-eight of these patients underwent AVR, 24 had MVR and 13 had DVR. Events occurred post-operatively in four (2.6%/patient year) of the AVR group, in three (12.2%/patient year) of the MVR group, but in none of the DVR group. The freedom at five years was 89 +/- 6% in the AVR and 84 +/- 8% at three years in the MVR. Post-operative cardiac death occurred in one (0.7%/patient year) of the AVR and in two (8.1%/patient year) of the MVR.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)