OBJECTIVE: To analyze intraoperative data and possible differences in clinical evolution during postoperative hospital phase for aortic valve replacement surgery using different types of prosthesis. METHODS: Analysis of 60 patients divided into three groups. Valve replacement with bioprosthesis (20), mechanical prosthesis (20) and homologous valve (20). The mean age was 51.1, 60% were male and 40% female patients; 86.7 % were in NYHA II or III; 63.3% presented arterial hypertension and 18.3% had diabetes. Aetiology of valve disease was degenerative for 39%, rheumatic for 36% and endocarditis for 15%. RESULTS: The hospital mortality was 5%; there were no differences in the incidence of septic or cardiogenic shock, acute renal failure, rhythms disorders during surgery or intensive care, neither for total time in intensive care and mechanical ventilation. However, there was statistical differences as regards the cardiopulmonary bypass total time (P=0.02) and the aortic clamping time (P<0.0001) unfavorable to homograft valve group. The ward admission time was greater for mechanical valve group (P=0.05) as well as for total admission time, but without statistical significance. It was observed that patients with preoperative hematocrit smaller than 38.1% used 2.73 units of blood components, and with postoperative hematocrit smaller than 32% used 1,79 units of blood components. Echocardiography control showed minimal evolutional differences. CONCLUSION: The use of different types of prosthesis for this study does not cause differences in the results of postoperative hospital phase. The use of homograft valve is a feasible option with good clinical applicability.
OBJECTIVE: To analyze intraoperative data and possible differences in clinical evolution during postoperative hospital phase for aortic valve replacement surgery using different types of prosthesis. METHODS: Analysis of 60 patients divided into three groups. Valve replacement with bioprosthesis (20), mechanical prosthesis (20) and homologous valve (20). The mean age was 51.1, 60% were male and 40% female patients; 86.7 % were in NYHA II or III; 63.3% presented arterial hypertension and 18.3% had diabetes. Aetiology of valve disease was degenerative for 39%, rheumatic for 36% and endocarditis for 15%. RESULTS: The hospital mortality was 5%; there were no differences in the incidence of septic or cardiogenic shock, acute renal failure, rhythms disorders during surgery or intensive care, neither for total time in intensive care and mechanical ventilation. However, there was statistical differences as regards the cardiopulmonary bypass total time (P=0.02) and the aortic clamping time (P<0.0001) unfavorable to homograft valve group. The ward admission time was greater for mechanical valve group (P=0.05) as well as for total admission time, but without statistical significance. It was observed that patients with preoperative hematocrit smaller than 38.1% used 2.73 units of blood components, and with postoperative hematocrit smaller than 32% used 1,79 units of blood components. Echocardiography control showed minimal evolutional differences. CONCLUSION: The use of different types of prosthesis for this study does not cause differences in the results of postoperative hospital phase. The use of homograft valve is a feasible option with good clinical applicability.
Authors: André Mauricio S Fernandes; Felipe da Silva Pereira; Larissa Santana Bitencourt; Agnaldo Viana Pereira Neto; Gabriel Barreto Bastos; André Rodrigues Durães; Roque Aras; Igor Nogueira Lessa Journal: Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc Date: 2014 Oct-Dec