Literature DB >> 15019662

Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves.

Marc Ruel1, Alexander Kulik, Fraser D Rubens, Pierre Bédard, Roy G Masters, Andrew L Pipe, Thierry G Mesana.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Reoperation is a relatively common event in patients with prosthetic heart valves, but its actual occurrence can vary widely from one patient to another. With a focus on bioprosthetic valves, this study examines risk factors for reoperation in a large patient cohort.
METHODS: Patients (N=3233) who underwent a total of 3633 operations for aortic (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) between 1970 and 2002 were prospectively followed (total 21,179 patient-years; mean 6.6+/-5.0 years; maximum 32.4 years). The incidence of prosthetic valve reoperation and the impact of patient- and valve-related variables were determined with actual and actuarial methods.
RESULTS: Fifteen-year actual freedom from all-cause reoperation was 94.1% for aortic mechanical valves, 61.4% for aortic bioprosthetic valves, 94.8% for mitral mechanical valves, and 63.3% for mitral bioprosthetic valves. In both aortic and mitral positions, current bioprosthesis models had significantly better durability than discontinued bioprostheses (15-year reoperation odds-ratio 0.11+/-0.04; P<0.01 for aortic, and 0.42+/-0.14; P=0.009 for mitral). Current bioprostheses were significantly more durable in the aortic position than in the mitral position (14.3+/-6.8% more freedom from 15-year reoperation; (P=0.018)). Older age was protective, but smoking was an independent risk factor for reoperation after bioprosthetic AVR and MVR (hazard ratio for smoking 2.58 and 1.78, respectively). In patients with aortic bioprostheses, persistent left ventricular hypertrophy at follow-up and smaller prosthesis size predicted an increased incidence of reoperation, while this was not observed in patients with mitral bioprostheses.
CONCLUSIONS: These analyses indicate that current bioprostheses have significantly better durability than discontinued bioprostheses, reveal a detrimental impact for smoking after AVR and MVR, and indicate an increased reoperation risk in patients with a small aortic bioprosthesis or with persistent left ventricular hypertrophy after AVR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15019662     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2003.12.013

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


  17 in total

Review 1.  Durability of prostheses for transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

Authors:  Mani Arsalan; Thomas Walther
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 32.419

2.  A mechanical heart valve is the best choice.

Authors:  Iqbal H Jaffer; Richard P Whitlock
Journal:  Heart Asia       Date:  2016-04-28

3.  Choice of prosthetic heart valve in a developing country.

Authors:  Shiv Kumar Choudhary; Sachin Talwar; Balram Airan
Journal:  Heart Asia       Date:  2016-04-28

Review 4.  Evolving Indications for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Interventions.

Authors:  Anna Franzone; Thomas Pilgrim; Stefan Stortecky; Stephan Windecker
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 5.  Current state of transcatheter mitral valve implantation in bioprosthetic mitral valve and in mitral ring as a treatment approach for failed mitral prosthesis.

Authors:  Vratika Agarwal; Ryan K Kaple; Hetal H Mehta; Prabhjot Singh; Vinayak N Bapat
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2021-09

Review 6.  Abdominal obesity and the metabolic syndrome: a surgeon's perspective.

Authors:  Patrick Mathieu
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 5.223

7.  Missing leaflet: a rare cause of structural deterioration of a bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis-report of a case.

Authors:  Yoshinobu Nakamura; Yoshikazu Fujiwara; Suguru Shiraya; Munehiro Saiki; Shingo Harada; Yuichiro Kishimoto; Takeshi Onohara; Yuki Otsuki; Motonobu Nishimura
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 2.549

8.  Characterizing the collagen fiber orientation in pericardial leaflets under mechanical loading conditions.

Authors:  S Hamed Alavi; Victor Ruiz; Tatiana Krasieva; Elliot L Botvinick; Arash Kheradvar
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 3.934

9.  Impact of recipient-related factors on structural dysfunction of xenoaortic bioprosthetic heart valves.

Authors:  Olga Barbarash; Natalya Rutkovskaya; Oksana Hryachkova; Olga Gruzdeva; Evgenya Uchasova; Anastasia Ponasenko; Natalya Kondyukova; Yuri Odarenko; Leonid Barbarash
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 2.711

10.  Comparison of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve replacement with mechanical or biological substitutes: a 20 years cohort.

Authors:  Angela Henrique Silva Ribeiro; Orlando Carlos Belmonte Wender; Adriana Silveira de Almeida; Luciana Eltz Soares; Paulo Dornelles Picon
Journal:  BMC Cardiovasc Disord       Date:  2014-10-18       Impact factor: 2.298

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.