Literature DB >> 19557979

Risk of reoperation for aortic bioprosthesis dysfunction.

Nicolas Jaussaud1, Vlad Gariboldi, Roch Giorgi, Dominique Grisoli, Virginie Chalvignac, Franck Thuny, Alberto Riberi, Frederic Collart.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: The risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed aortic bioprosthesis may be overestimated, this being a dominant factor when selecting an initial prosthesis to be implanted in patients aged <70 years. The study aims were, first, to analyze the mortality and morbidity of redo aortic bioprosthesis replacement in the current era, and second, to identify preoperative risk factors and evaluate the EuroSCORE.
METHODS: A total of 156 consecutive patients (111 men, 45 women; mean age 60.9 years; range: 23-87 years) who underwent reoperation for failed aortic bioprosthesis between 1990 and 2006 was reviewed in this retrospective, single-center study. Surgery was undertaken due to bioprosthesis degeneration (82.7%), bacterial prosthetic endocarditis (14.1%), paravalvular leak (1.3%) and other causes (1.9%). Emergency procedures were performed in 9% of patients. Associated procedures were coronary artery bypass grafting in 7.7% of patients, ascending aortic graft in 7%, and complete aortic root replacement in 6.4%. The predictive mortality was 8% according to the Additive EuroSCORE, and 15% according to the Logistic EuroSCORE.
RESULTS: Overall, the operative mortality was 3.8% (n = 6), and postoperative morbidity was low. The only multivariable predictor was emergency surgery (OR = 15.22, 95% CI = 1.68-86.43; p = 0.02). A mortality trend was associated with atrial fibrillation and NYHA class III/IV, but this was not statistically significant (p = 0.09 and p = 0.06, respectively). Associated procedures were not significant risk factors for mortality.
CONCLUSION: Reoperation for aortic bioprosthesis dysfunction can be performed with a low risk of mortality. It appears that this risk is overestimated by the EuroSCORE. Those patients who wish to avoid postoperative anticoagulant therapy may choose to receive this type of valve, even if reoperation is foreseeable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19557979

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis        ISSN: 0966-8519


  5 in total

1.  Safety and Feasibility of a Nonpledgeted Suture Technique for Heart Valve Replacement.

Authors:  Patrick G Chan; Ernest G Chan; Laura Seese; Ibrahim Sultan; Arman Kilic; Thomas G Gleason; Danny Chu
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 14.766

2.  Aortic biological valve prosthesis in patients younger than 65 years of age: transition to a flexible age limit?

Authors:  Lars Niclauss; Ludwig Karl von Segesser; Enrico Ferrari
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2013-01-03

3.  Use of a nonpledgeted suture technique is safe and efficient for aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  Damien J LaPar; Gorav Ailawadi; Castigliano M Bhamidipati; Mansher Singh; David Dare; John A Kern; Irving L Kron
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2010-05-20       Impact factor: 5.209

Review 4.  Transcatheter Aortic Valve-in-Valve Procedure in Patients with Bioprosthetic Structural Valve Deterioration.

Authors:  Ross M Reul; Mahesh K Ramchandani; Michael J Reardon
Journal:  Methodist Debakey Cardiovasc J       Date:  2017 Jul-Sep

5.  DNA persistence and relapses questions on the treatment strategies of Enterococcus infections of prosthetic valves.

Authors:  Jean-Paul Casalta; Franck Thuny; Pierre-Edouard Fournier; Hubert Lepidi; Gilbert Habib; Dominique Grisoli; Didier Raoult
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-31       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.