OBJECTIVE: Successful mitral valve replacement in young children is limited by the lack of small prosthetic valves. Supra-annular prosthesis implantation can facilitate mitral valve replacement with a larger prosthesis in children with a small annulus, but little is known about its effect on the outcomes of mitral valve replacement in young children. METHODS: One hundred eighteen children underwent mitral valve replacement at 5 years of age or younger from 1976-2006. Mitral valve replacement was supra-annular in 37 (32%) patients. RESULTS: Survival was 74% +/- 4% at 1 year and 56% +/- 5% at 10 years but improved over time (10-year survival of 83% +/- 7% from 1994-2006). Factors associated with worse survival included earlier mitral valve replacement date, age less than 1 year, complete atrioventricular canal, and additional procedures at mitral valve replacement, but not supra-annular mitral valve replacement. As survival improved during our more recent experience, the risks of supra-annular mitral valve replacement became apparent; survival was worse among patients with a supra-annular prosthesis after 1991. A pacemaker was placed in 18 (15%) patients within 1 month of mitral valve replacement and was less likely in patients who had undergone supra-annular mitral valve replacement. Among early survivors, freedom from redo mitral valve replacement was 72% +/- 5% at 5 years and 45% +/- 7% at 10 years. Twenty-one patients with a supra-annular prosthesis underwent redo mitral valve replacement. The second prosthesis was annular in 15 of these patients and upsized in all but 1, but 5 required pacemaker placement for heart block. CONCLUSIONS: Supra-annular mitral valve replacement was associated with worse survival than annular mitral valve replacement in our recent experience. Patients with supra-annular mitral valve replacement were less likely to have operative complete heart block but remained at risk when the prosthesis was subsequently replaced.
OBJECTIVE: Successful mitral valve replacement in young children is limited by the lack of small prosthetic valves. Supra-annular prosthesis implantation can facilitate mitral valve replacement with a larger prosthesis in children with a small annulus, but little is known about its effect on the outcomes of mitral valve replacement in young children. METHODS: One hundred eighteen children underwent mitral valve replacement at 5 years of age or younger from 1976-2006. Mitral valve replacement was supra-annular in 37 (32%) patients. RESULTS: Survival was 74% +/- 4% at 1 year and 56% +/- 5% at 10 years but improved over time (10-year survival of 83% +/- 7% from 1994-2006). Factors associated with worse survival included earlier mitral valve replacement date, age less than 1 year, complete atrioventricular canal, and additional procedures at mitral valve replacement, but not supra-annular mitral valve replacement. As survival improved during our more recent experience, the risks of supra-annular mitral valve replacement became apparent; survival was worse among patients with a supra-annular prosthesis after 1991. A pacemaker was placed in 18 (15%) patients within 1 month of mitral valve replacement and was less likely in patients who had undergone supra-annular mitral valve replacement. Among early survivors, freedom from redo mitral valve replacement was 72% +/- 5% at 5 years and 45% +/- 7% at 10 years. Twenty-one patients with a supra-annular prosthesis underwent redo mitral valve replacement. The second prosthesis was annular in 15 of these patients and upsized in all but 1, but 5 required pacemaker placement for heart block. CONCLUSIONS:Supra-annular mitral valve replacement was associated with worse survival than annular mitral valve replacement in our recent experience. Patients with supra-annular mitral valve replacement were less likely to have operative complete heart block but remained at risk when the prosthesis was subsequently replaced.
Authors: T Günther; D Mazzitelli; C Schreiber; M Wottke; S U Paek; H Meisner; R Lange Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Doff B McElhinney; Megan C Sherwood; John F Keane; Pedro J del Nido; Christopher S D Almond; James E Lock Journal: Circulation Date: 2005-07-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Wolfram Beierlein; Vera Becker; Robert Yates; Victor Tsang; Martin Elliott; Marc de Leval; Carin van Doorn Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Fatemeh Kojori; Rui Chen; Christopher A Caldarone; Sandra L Merklinger; Anthony Azakie; William G Williams; Glen S Van Arsdell; John Coles; Brian W McCrindle Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Brian K Eble; William P Fiser; Pippa Simpson; Judith Dugan; Jonathan J Drummond-Webb; Anji T Yetman Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Hunaid A Vohra; Simon Laker; Oliver Stumper; Joe V De Giovanni; John G Wright; David J Barron; William J Brawn Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2006-03-07 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Norihiro Kondo; Takashi Shuto; Jeremy R McGarvey; Kevin J Koomalsingh; Manabu Takebe; Robert C Gorman; Joseph H Gorman; Matthew J Gillespie Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Chizitam Ibezim; Amber Leila Sarvestani; Jessica H Knight; Omar Qayum; Noor Alshami; Elizabeth Turk; James St Louis; Courtney McCracken; James H Moller; Lazaros Kochilas; Geetha Raghuveer Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Lindsay R Freud; Gerald R Marx; Audrey C Marshall; Wayne Tworetzky; Sitaram M Emani Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Joshua D Robinson; Gerald R Marx; Pedro J Del Nido; James E Lock; Doff B McElhinney Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2009-05-04 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: B Min Yun; Doff B McElhinney; Shiva Arjunon; Lucia Mirabella; Cyrus K Aidun; Ajit P Yoganathan Journal: J Biomech Date: 2014-06-24 Impact factor: 2.712