Literature DB >> 12970216

Reoperation for bioprosthetic mitral structural failure: risk assessment.

W R E Jamieson1, L H Burr, R T Miyagishima, M T Janusz, G J Fradet, S V Lichtenstein, H Ling.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The predominant complication of bioprostheses is structural valve deterioration and the consequences of reoperation. The purpose of the study was to determine the mortality and risk assessment of that mortality for mitral bioprosthetic failure. METHODS AND
RESULTS: From 1975 to 1999, 1 973 patients received a heterograft bioprosthesis in 2 152 operations. The procedures were performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass (CAB) in 694 operations and without in 1 458 operations. There were 481 reoperations for structural valve deterioration performed in 463 patients with 34 fatalities (7.1%). Of the 481 re-replacements, 67 had CAB and 414 had isolated replacement; the mortality was 11.9% (8) and 6.3% (26), respectively. Eleven predictive factors inclusive of age, concomitant CAB, urgency status, New York Heart Association (NYHA; reoperation), and year of reoperation (year periods) were considered. The mortality from 1975 to 1986 was 9.8% (6/61), from 1987 to 1992 it was 10.8% (20/185), and from 1993 to 2000 it was 3.4% (8/235) (I versus III P=0.0458, II versus III P=0.0047). The mortality by urgency status was elective/urgent 6.0% (26/436) and emergent 17.8% (8/45) (P=0.00879). The mortality was NYHA I/II 0.00% (0/37), III 5.1% (14/273), and IV 11.7% (20/171) (P=0.0069). The predictive risk factors by multivariate regression analysis were age at implant, odds ratio (OR) 0.84 (P=0.0113); age at explant, OR 1.2 (P=0.0089); urgency, OR 2.8 (P=0.0264); NYHA, OR 2.5 (P=0.015); 1975-1986 versus 1993-2000 of reoperations, OR 5.8 (P=0.0062); and 1987-19 92 versus 1993-2000, OR 4.0 (P=0.0023). For the period 1993 to 2000 of reoperations, only age at implant and age at explant were significant; NYHA class, urgency status, and concomitant CAB were not significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Bioprosthetic mitral reoperative mortality can be lowered by reoperations on an elective/urgent basis in low to medium NYHA functional class. The routine evaluation of patients can achieve earlier low risk reoperative surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12970216     DOI: 10.1161/01.cir.0000089184.46999.f4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  11 in total

1.  Early bioprosthetic valve failure caused by preserved native mitral valve leaflets.

Authors:  Koji Takeda; Richard Lee
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2011-11-23

2.  Outcome after redo-mitral valve replacement in adult patients: a 10-year single-centre experience.

Authors:  Hunaid A Vohra; Robert N Whistance; Apostolos Roubelakis; Andrew Burton; Clifford W Barlow; Geoffrey M K Tsang; Steve A Livesey; Sunil K Ohri
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2012-01-31

3.  One-Year Outcomes of Mitral Valve-in-Valve Using the SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Heart Valve.

Authors:  Brian Whisenant; Samir R Kapadia; Mackram F Eleid; Susheel K Kodali; James M McCabe; Amar Krishnaswamy; Michael Morse; Richard W Smalling; Mark Reisman; Michael Mack; William W O'Neill; Vinayak N Bapat; Martin B Leon; Charanjit S Rihal; Raj R Makkar; Mayra Guerrero
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 4.  Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement for Native and Failed Bioprosthetic Mitral Valves.

Authors:  Kunal Sarkar; Michael J Reardon; Stephen H Little; Colin M Barker; Neal S Kleiman
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

5.  Higher-risk mitral valve operations after previous sternotomy: endoscopic, minimally invasive approach improves patient outcomes.

Authors:  Katie L Losenno; Philip M Jones; Matthew Valdis; Stephanie A Fox; Bob Kiaii; Michael W A Chu
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.089

6.  Porcine versus bovine bioprosthetic valves in mitral position: does choice really matter?

Authors:  Karthik Raman; Anbarasu Mohanraj; Vijayanand Palanisamy; Bharat Kumar Mohandoss; Sivakumar Pandian; Anjith Prakash Rajakumar; Jacob Jamesraj; Ejaz Ahmed Sheriff; Valikapathalil Mathew Kurian; Rajan Sethuratnam; Ravi Agarwal
Journal:  Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-07-23

7.  Reoperative Mitral Surgery Versus Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Aditya Sengupta; Farhang Yazdchi; Sophia L Alexis; Edward Percy; Akash Premkumar; Sameer Hirji; Vinayak N Bapat; Deepak L Bhatt; Tsuyoshi Kaneko; Gilbert H L Tang
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-03-09       Impact factor: 5.501

8.  Transcatheter transseptal mitral valve implantation with Edwards SAPIEN 3: the first experience of a single center.

Authors:  Paweł Kralisz; Marek Frank; Bożena Sobkowicz; Sławomir Dobrzycki; Tomasz Hirnle
Journal:  Postepy Kardiol Interwencyjnej       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 1.426

9.  Dynamic Echocardiographic Imaging of a Valve-in-Valve Mitral Prosthesis.

Authors:  Bishoy Wassef; Mina Masry; Mounir Ghali; John N Makaryus; Amgad N Makaryus
Journal:  Case Rep Radiol       Date:  2022-02-16

Review 10.  Current concepts for minimally invasive mitral valve repair.

Authors:  B Rylski; F Beyersdorf
Journal:  Heart Lung Vessel       Date:  2013
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.