Literature DB >> 26358259

Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients With Severe Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Stenosis Undergoing Redo Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement.

Peyman Naji1, Brian P Griffin1, Joseph F Sabik1, Kenya Kusunose1, Fadi Asfahan1, Zoran B Popovic1, L Leonardo Rodriguez1, Bruce W Lytle1, Richard A Grimm1, Lars G Svensson1, Milind Y Desai2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With improved event-free survival of patients undergoing primary bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement (AVR), reoperation to relieve severe prosthetic aortic stenosis (PAS) is increasing. We sought to (1) identify of the characteristics of patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, and (2) assess the outcomes of these patients, along with factors associated with adverse outcomes. METHODS AND
RESULTS: We studied 276 patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS (64±16 years, 58% men) who underwent redo-AVR between 2000 and 2012 (excluding mechanical PAS, severe other valve disease, and transcatheter AVR). Society of Thoracic Surgeons score was calculated. Severe PAS was defined as AV area <0.8 cm(2), mean AV gradient ≥40 mm Hg, or dimensionless index <0.25. A composite outcome of death and congestive heart failure admission was recorded. Mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score and mean AV gradients were 8±8 and 53±17 mm Hg, whereas 28% had >II+ aortic regurgitation. Only 39% had an isolated redo AVR, the rest were combination surgeries (coronary bypass and/or aortic surgeries). At 4.2±3 years, 64 (23%) patients met the composite end point (48 deaths and 19 congestive heart failure admissions, 2.5% 30-day deaths). On multivariable Cox survival analysis, higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score (hazard ratio, 1.35), higher grades of aortic regurgitation (hazard ratio, 1.29), and higher right ventricular systolic pressure (hazard ratio, 1.3) were associated with worse longer-term outcomes (all P<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: At an experienced center, in patients with severe bioprosthetic PAS undergoing redo AVR, the majority undergo combination surgeries but have excellent outcomes.
© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  aortic valve replacement and outcomes; bioprosthetic aortic stenosis

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26358259     DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.015939

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Circulation        ISSN: 0009-7322            Impact factor:   29.690


  4 in total

1.  Repeat aortic valve surgery: contemporary outcomes and risk stratification.

Authors:  Katrien François; Laurent De Backer; Thomas Martens; Tine Philipsen; Yves Van Belleghem; Thierry Bové
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-01-22

2.  Calcification and Oxidative Modifications Are Associated With Progressive Bioprosthetic Heart Valve Dysfunction.

Authors:  Suengwon Lee; Robert J Levy; Abigail J Christian; Stanley L Hazen; Nathan E Frick; Eric K Lai; Juan B Grau; Joseph E Bavaria; Giovanni Ferrari
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2017-05-08       Impact factor: 5.501

3.  Early results from a prospective, single-arm European trial on decellularized allografts for aortic valve replacement: the ARISE study and ARISE Registry data.

Authors:  Alexander Horke; Igor Tudorache; Günther Laufer; Martin Andreas; Jose L Pomar; Daniel Pereda; Eduard Quintana; Marta Sitges; Bart Meyns; Filip Rega; Mark Hazekamp; Michael Hübler; Martin Schmiady; John Pepper; U Rosendahl; Artur Lichtenberg; Payam Akhyari; Ramadan Jashari; Dietmar Boethig; Dmitry Bobylev; Murat Avsar; Serghei Cebotari; Axel Haverich; Samir Sarikouch
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-11-01       Impact factor: 4.191

4.  Mitral Valve-In-Valve: Defining the Indication Limits by in vitro Hydrodynamic Tests in a Brazilian Transcatheter Prosthesis.

Authors:  Thiago Vila Nova; Caio Cardoso; Ademir Braz; Honório Palma; Diego Gaia
Journal:  Braz J Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2021-12-03
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.