Literature DB >> 10731648

Reoperative surgery for degenerated aortic bioprostheses: predictors for emergency surgery and reoperative mortality.

P R Vogt1, H Brunner-LaRocca, P Sidler, G Zünd, K Truniger, M Lachat, J Turina, M I Turina.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The long-term outcome of patients with aortic bioprosthetic valves could be improved by decreasing the reoperative mortality rate.
METHODS: Predictors of emergency reoperation and reoperative mortality were identified retrospectively in 172 patients who had the first bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement between 1975 and 1988 (mean age 46+/-13 years) and were subjected to replacement of the degenerated bioprostheses between 1978 and 1997 (mean age 56+/-14 years). Emergency reoperation had to be performed in 31 patients (18%).
RESULTS: The operative mortality was 5.2% (9/172), 22.6% for emergency (odds ratio 11.17; 95%-confidence limit 4.33-28.85) and 1.4% for elective replacement of the degenerated aortic bioprosthesis (P<0.0001; OR=20.3). Patients who died at reoperation had higher transvalvular gradients before the primary aortic valve replacement (P=0.007), received smaller bioprostheses at the first operation (P=0.03), had later recurrence of symptoms after the first aortic valve replacement (P=0.04), a higher pre-reoperative New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (P=0.02), and a higher incidence of coronary artery disease (P=0.001) and pulmonary artery hypertension (P=0.009). Endocarditis before the primary aortic valve replacement (P=0.004), postoperative pneumonia at the first operation (P=0.005), pulmonary hypertension (P=0.0004) acquired during the interval, later recurrence of symptoms (P=0.04) after the first operation, a lower ejection fraction at the time of reoperation (P=0.03) and acute onset of bioprosthetic regurgitation (P=0.00002) were predictors for emergency surgery. Higher transvalvular gradients at the primary aortic valve replacement (P=0. 006), coronary artery disease (P=0.003) acquired during the interval, the need for concomitant coronary artery revascularization (P=0. 001), sex (P=0.02) and size (P=0.05) and type of the bioprostheses used (P=0.007) were incremental predictors for reoperative mortality which were independent of emergency surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Elective replacement of failed aortic bioprostheses is safe. Patients undergoing emergency reoperation have a considerably higher mortality. They can be identified by a history of native aortic valve endocarditis, higher transvalvular gradients at primary aortic valve replacement, smaller bioprostheses, and pulmonary hypertension or coronary artery disease acquired during the interval. A failing bioprosthesis must be replaced at its first sign of dysfunction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10731648     DOI: 10.1016/s1010-7940(99)00363-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  10 in total

Review 1.  Minimally invasive reoperative aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kevin Phan; Jessie J Zhou; Nithya Niranjan; Marco Di Eusanio; Tristan D Yan
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2015-01

Review 2.  Latest Advances in Multimodality Imaging of Aortic Stenosis.

Authors:  Evangelos Tzolos; Jacek Kwiecinski; Daniel Berman; Piotr Slomka; David E Newby; Marc R Dweck
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2021-12-09       Impact factor: 10.057

3.  Outcomes of reoperative aortic valve replacement after previous sternotomy.

Authors:  Damien J LaPar; Zequan Yang; George J Stukenborg; Benjamin B Peeler; John A Kern; Irving L Kron; Gorav Ailawadi
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 5.209

Review 4.  Heart valve replacement: which valve for which patient?

Authors:  Joseph Huh; Faisal Bakaeen
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 5.  Role of Echocardiography Before Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI).

Authors:  Sveeta Badiani; Sanjeev Bhattacharyya; Guy Lloyd
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.931

6.  Detection and Prediction of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Degeneration.

Authors:  Timothy R G Cartlidge; Mhairi K Doris; Stephanie L Sellers; Tania A Pawade; Audrey C White; Renzo Pessotto; Jacek Kwiecinski; Alison Fletcher; Carlos Alcaide; Christophe Lucatelli; Cameron Densem; James H F Rudd; Edwin J R van Beek; Adriana Tavares; Renu Virmani; Daniel Berman; Jonathon A Leipsic; David E Newby; Marc R Dweck
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  Meta-Analysis of Stroke and Mortality Rates in Patients Undergoing Valve-in-Valve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Sascha Macherey; Max Meertens; Victor Mauri; Christian Frerker; Matti Adam; Stephan Baldus; Tobias Schmidt
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-03-08       Impact factor: 5.501

8.  Transoesophageal echocardiography-guided 'primary' valve-in-valve technique in cardiogenic shock: a case report.

Authors:  Vincenzo Polizzi; Joseph Cosma; Antonio Cammardella; Federico Ranocchi; Francesco Musumeci
Journal:  Eur Heart J Case Rep       Date:  2021-07-30

9.  Artificial aortic valve dysfunction due to pannus and thrombus - different methods of cardiac surgical management.

Authors:  Stanisław Ostrowski; Anna Marcinkiewicz; Anna Kośmider; Andrzej Walczak; Radosław Zwoliński; Ryszard Jaszewski
Journal:  Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol       Date:  2015-09-28

10.  Transcatheter heart valve in valve implantation with Edwards SAPIEN bioprosthetic valve for different degenerated bioprosthetic valve positions (First Iranian ViV report with mid-term follow up).

Authors:  Ali Mohammad Haji Zeinali; Kyomars Abbasi; Mohammad Saheb Jam; Shahrooz Yazdani; Seyedeh Hamideh Mortazavi
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Thorac Res       Date:  2017-09-30
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.