Literature DB >> 26530269

Very long-term outcomes of the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve in patients aged 50-65 years.

Thierry Bourguignon1, Pierre Lhommet2, Rym El Khoury2, Pascal Candolfi3, Claudia Loardi2, Alain Mirza2, Julie Boulanger-Lothion2, Anne-Lorraine Bouquiaux-Stablo-Duncan2, Michel Marchand2, Michel Aupart2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) using a bioprosthesis remains controversial for patients aged 50-65 years. This cohort study reports the very long-term outcomes of AVR using Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis in this age group.
METHODS: From 1984 to 2008, 522 Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial aortic bioprostheses were implanted in 516 patients aged 50-65 years (mean age, 60 ± 4 years; 19% female). Multiple valve replacements were excluded fro m our cohort. Baseline demographic, perioperative and follow-up data were recorded prospectively. Mean follow-up was 9 ± 6 years, for a total of 4428 valve-years. Follow-up was complete for 97% of patients included.
RESULTS: Operative mortality rate was 2%. One hundred and forty-six late deaths occurred for a linearized rate of 3%/valve-year. Actuarial survival rates averaged 73 ± 2, 59 ± 3 and 35 ± 5% after 10, 15 and 20 years of follow-up, respectively. Mortality rate associated with reoperation was 2%. Actuarial freedom from reoperation rates due to structural valve deterioration (SVD) at 10, 15 and 20 years was respectively of 91 ± 2, 76 ± 3 and 50 ± 6%. Competing risk analysis demonstrated an actual risk of explantation secondary to SVD at 20 years of 30 ± 3%. Expected valve durability was 19 years for this age group. Age was not a significant risk factor for SVD in this middle-aged population.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged 50-65 years undergoing AVR with the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount bioprosthesis, the expected valve durability was 19 years. Age was not a significant risk factor for SVD within this age group. Patient selection and attention to timing of reintervention may be determinants of long-term outcomes.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioprosthesis; Complications; Heart valve; Statistics; Surgery; Survival analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26530269     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezv384

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  15 in total

1.  Aortic valve replacement in young and middle-aged adults: looking beyond the tree that hides the forest.

Authors:  Amine Mazine; Maral Ouzounian
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2017-02

2.  Optimizations of stent and tissue leaflets in a new surgical bovine pericardial valve.

Authors:  Jinmiao Chen; Jun Yang; Li Zhang; Wenrui Ma; Shuyang Lu; Chunsheng Wang; Tao Hong
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 3.  Biological aortic valve replacement: advantages and optimal indications of stentless compared to stented valve substitutes. A review.

Authors:  Reza Tavakoli; Pichoy Danial; Ahmed Hamid Oudjana; Peiman Jamshidi; Max Gassmann; Pascal Leprince; Guillaume Lebreton
Journal:  Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-01-10

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.  David aortic valve-sparing reimplantation versus biological aortic root replacement: a retrospective analysis of 411 patients.

Authors:  Lukas Schamberger; Sergey Leontyev; Piroze Minoo Davierwala; Konstantin Von Aspern; Sven Lehmann; Martin Misfeld; Michael Andrew Borger
Journal:  Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-10-14

6.  Noncalcific Mechanisms of Bioprosthetic Structural Valve Degeneration.

Authors:  Matteo Marro; Alexander P Kossar; Yingfei Xue; Antonio Frasca; Robert J Levy; Giovanni Ferrari
Journal:  J Am Heart Assoc       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 5.501

7.  Prognosis after surgical replacement with a bioprosthetic aortic valve in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: systematic review of observational studies.

Authors:  Farid Foroutan; Gordon H Guyatt; Kathleen O'Brien; Eva Bain; Madeleine Stein; Sai Bhagra; Daegan Sit; Rakhshan Kamran; Yaping Chang; Tahira Devji; Hassan Mir; Veena Manja; Toni Schofield; Reed A Siemieniuk; Thomas Agoritsas; Rodrigo Bagur; Catherine M Otto; Per O Vandvik
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-09-28

8.  Outcomes comparison of different surgical strategies for the management of severe aortic valve stenosis: study protocol of a prospective multicentre European registry (E-AVR registry).

Authors:  Francesco Onorati; Riccardo Gherli; Giovanni Mariscalco; Evaldas Girdauskas; Eduardo Quintana; Francesco Santini; Marisa De Feo; Sandro Sponga; Piergiorgio Tozzi; Mohamad Bashir; Andrea Perrotti; Aniello Pappalardo; Vito Giovanni Ruggieri; Giuseppe Santarpino; Mauro Rinaldi; Silva Ronaldo; Francesco Nicolini
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-10       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  The Fluid Dynamical Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Magna Ease Prosthesis.

Authors:  Philipp Marx; Wojciech Kowalczyk; Aydin Demircioglu; Gary Neil Brault; Hermann Wendt; Sharaf-Eldin Shehada; Konstantinos Tsagakis; Mohamed El Gabry; Heinz Jakob; Daniel Wendt
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 10.  The Choice of Pulmonary Autograft in Aortic Valve Surgery: A State-of-the-Art Primer.

Authors:  Francesco Nappi; Sanjeet Singh Avtaar Singh; Francesca Bellomo; Pierluigi Nappi; Adelaide Iervolino; Christophe Acar
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-04-13       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.