Literature DB >> 24404348

Factors influencing mortality after bioprosthetic valve replacement; a midterm outcome.

Hassan Javadzadegan1, Amir Javadzadegan2, Jafar Mehdizadeh Baghbani2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Although valve repair is applied routinely nowadays, particularly for mitral regurgitation (MR) or tricuspid regurgitation (TR), valve replacement using prosthetic valves is also common especially in adults. Unfortunately the valve with ideal hemodynamic performance and long-term durability without increasing the risk of bleeding due to long-term anticoagulant therapy has not been introduced. Therefore, patients and physicians must choose either bioprosthetic or mechanical valves. Currently, there is an increasing clinical trend of using bioprosthetic valves instead of mechanical valves even in young patients apparently because of their advantages.
METHODS: Seventy patients undergone valvular replacement using bioprosthetic valves were evaluated by ECG and Echocardiography to assess the rhythm and ejection fracture. Mean follow-up time was 33 months (min 9, max 92).
RESULTS: Mortality rate was 25.9% (n=18) within 8 years of follow-up. Statistical analysis showed a significant relation between atrial fibrillation rhythm and mortality (P=0.02). Morbidities occurred in 30 patients (42.8%). Significant statistical relation was found between the morbidities and age over 65 years old (P=0.005). In follow-up period, 4 cases (5.7%) underwent re-operation due to global valve dysfunction.
CONCLUSION: Our study shows that using biprosthetic valve could reduce the risk of morbidity occurrence in patient who needs valve replacement. However, if medical treatments fail, patients should be referred for surgery. This would reduce the risk of mortality because of lower incident of complications such as atrial fibrillation and morbidities due to younger patients' population.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic Valve Replacement; Bioprosthetic Valve; Mitral Valve Replacement

Year:  2013        PMID: 24404348      PMCID: PMC3883540          DOI: 10.5681/jcvtr.2013.035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Thorac Res        ISSN: 2008-5117


  13 in total

1.  Outcomes 15 years after valve replacement with a mechanical versus a bioprosthetic valve: final report of the Veterans Affairs randomized trial.

Authors:  K Hammermeister; G K Sethi; W G Henderson; F L Grover; C Oprian; S H Rahimtoola
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 2.  The 'threshold age' in choosing biological versus mechanical prostheses in western countries.

Authors:  David J Wheatley
Journal:  J Heart Valve Dis       Date:  2004-05

3.  Recommendations for evaluation of prosthetic valves with echocardiography and doppler ultrasound: a report From the American Society of Echocardiography's Guidelines and Standards Committee and the Task Force on Prosthetic Valves, developed in conjunction with the American College of Cardiology Cardiovascular Imaging Committee, Cardiac Imaging Committee of the American Heart Association, the European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography and the Canadian Society of Echocardiography, endorsed by the American College of Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association, European Association of Echocardiography, a registered branch of the European Society of Cardiology, the Japanese Society of Echocardiography, and Canadian Society of Echocardiography.

Authors:  William A Zoghbi; John B Chambers; Jean G Dumesnil; Elyse Foster; John S Gottdiener; Paul A Grayburn; Bijoy K Khandheria; Robert A Levine; Gerald Ross Marx; Fletcher A Miller; Satoshi Nakatani; Miguel A Quiñones; Harry Rakowski; L Leonardo Rodriguez; Madhav Swaminathan; Alan D Waggoner; Neil J Weissman; Miguel Zabalgoitia
Journal:  J Am Soc Echocardiogr       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.251

Review 4.  Prosthetic heart valves.

Authors:  W Vongpatanasin; L D Hillis; R A Lange
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-08-08       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Lessons learned about the determinants of the results of valve surgery.

Authors:  S H Rahimtoola
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 29.690

6.  Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement.

Authors:  V Chan; W R E Jamieson; E Germann; F Chan; R T Miyagishima; L H Burr; M T Janusz; H Ling; G J Fradet
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 5.209

7.  A comparison of outcomes in men 11 years after heart-valve replacement with a mechanical valve or bioprosthesis. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease.

Authors:  K E Hammermeister; G K Sethi; W G Henderson; C Oprian; T Kim; S Rahimtoola
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-05-06       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 8.  Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients.

Authors:  Shahbudin H Rahimtoola
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2003-03-19       Impact factor: 24.094

9.  Twenty year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses.

Authors:  H Oxenham; P Bloomfield; D J Wheatley; R J Lee; J Cunningham; R J Prescott; H C Miller
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.994

10.  Twelve-year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses.

Authors:  P Bloomfield; D J Wheatley; R J Prescott; H C Miller
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-02-28       Impact factor: 91.245

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.