Literature DB >> 12400752

Results of bioprosthetic versus mechanical aortic valve replacement performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting.

Cary W Akins1, Alan D Hilgenberg, Gus J Vlahakes, Thomas E MacGillivray, David F Torchiana, Joren C Madsen.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Concomitant coronary artery disease with aortic valve disease is an established risk factor for diminished late survival. This study evaluated the results of bioprosthetic (BAVR) or mechanical aortic valve replacement (MAVR) performed with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
METHODS: From January 1984 through July 1997, combined AVR + CABG was performed in 750 consecutive patients; 469 received BAVR and 281 received MAVR. BAVR recipients were significantly older (mean age, 75 vs 65 years), and had more nonelective operations, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, preoperative intraaortic balloons, lower cardiac indices, more severe aortic stenosis, less aortic regurgitation, and more extensive coronary artery disease.
RESULTS: Early complications included operative mortality, 32 patients (4.3% total: 3.8% BAVR and 5.0% MAVR); perioperative infarction, 10 (1.3%); and perioperative stroke, 22 (2.9%). Significant multivariable predictors of early mortality were age, perioperative infarction or stroke, nonelective operation, operative year, ventricular hypertrophy, and need for intraaortic balloon. Ten-year actuarial survival was 41.7% for all patients. Predicted survival for age- and gender-matched cohorts from the general population versus observed survival were BAVR, 45% versus 36%; MAVR, 71% versus 48% (survival differences BAVR 9% vs MAVR 23%, p < 0.007). Significant multivariable predictors of late mortality included age, congestive failure, perioperative stroke, extent of coronary disease, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes. Valve type was not significant. Ten-year actuarial freedom from valve-related complications were (BAVR vs MAVR) structural deterioration, 95% versus 100%, p = NS; thromboembolism, 86% versus 84%, p = NS; anticoagulant bleeding, 93% versus 88%, p < 0.005; reoperation, 98% versus 98%, p = NS.
CONCLUSIONS: AVR + CABG has diminished late survival despite the type of prosthesis inserted. Although valve type did not predict late mortality, mechanical AVR was associated with worse survival compared with predicted and more valve-related complications due to anticoagulation requirements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12400752     DOI: 10.1016/s0003-4975(02)03840-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg        ISSN: 0003-4975            Impact factor:   4.330


  9 in total

1.  Performance of EuroSCORE II compared to EuroSCORE I in predicting operative and mid-term mortality of patients from a single center after combined coronary artery bypass grafting and aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Kyriakos Spiliopoulos; Vasilis Bagiatis; Oliver Deutsch; Bernhard M Kemkes; Nikolaos Antonopoulos; Dimos Karangelis; Ayman Haschemi; Brigitte Gansera
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2013-08-29

2.  Analysis of mitral valve replacement outcomes is enhanced by meaningful clinical use of electronic health records.

Authors:  John C Chen; Thomas Pfeffer; Shelley Johnstone; Yuexin Chen; Mary-Lou Kiley; Richard Richter; Hon Lee
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2013

Review 3.  When is concomitant aortic valve replacement indicated in patients with mild to moderate stenosis undergoing coronary revascularization?

Authors:  A Marc Gillinov; Mario J Garcia
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.931

4.  Mid term outcome and quality of life after aortic valve replacement in elderly people: mechanical versus stentless biological valves.

Authors:  I Florath; A Albert; U Rosendahl; T Alexander; I C Ennker; J Ennker
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.994

5.  Coronary artery bypass grafting associated to aortic valve replacement in the elderly: survival and quality of life.

Authors:  Mariano Vicchio; Marisa De Feo; Salvatore Giordano; Raffaella Provenzano; Maurizio Cotrufo; Gianantonio Nappi
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2012-02-06       Impact factor: 1.637

6.  Calcification and Oxidative Modifications Are Associated With Progressive Bioprosthetic Heart Valve Dysfunction.

Authors:  Suengwon Lee; Robert J Levy; Abigail J Christian; Stanley L Hazen; Nathan E Frick; Eric K Lai; Juan B Grau; Joseph E Bavaria; Giovanni Ferrari
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 5.501

7.  Impact of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the utilization and in-hospital outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement in Spain (2001-2015).

Authors:  Ana López-de-Andrés; Napoleon Perez-Farinos; Javier de Miguel-Díez; Valentín Hernández-Barrera; Manuel Méndez-Bailón; José M de Miguel-Yanes; Rodrigo Jiménez-García
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diabetol       Date:  2018-10-16       Impact factor: 9.951

Review 8.  Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement in <50 Years Old Patients - Where is the Evidence?

Authors:  Amer Harky; Michael Man Yuen Suen; Chris Ho Ming Wong; Abdul Rahman Maaliki; Mohamad Bashir
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-12-01

Review 9.  Contemporary outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement with bioprostheses and allografts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Simone A Huygens; Mostafa M Mokhles; Milad Hanif; Jos A Bekkers; Ad J J C Bogers; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Johanna J M Takkenberg
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 4.191

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.