| Literature DB >> 28483776 |
Suengwon Lee1, Robert J Levy2, Abigail J Christian1, Stanley L Hazen3, Nathan E Frick4, Eric K Lai4, Juan B Grau5, Joseph E Bavaria4, Giovanni Ferrari4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs), fabricated from glutaraldehyde-pretreated bovine pericardium or porcine aortic valves, are widely used for the surgical or interventional treatment of heart valve disease. Reoperation becomes increasingly necessary over time because of BHV dysfunction. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: bioprosthesis; calcification; oxidation; oxidative stress
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28483776 PMCID: PMC5524104 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.117.005648
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Am Heart Assoc ISSN: 2047-9980 Impact factor: 5.501
Patient Demographics and Clinical Characteristics of Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Explants
| Total number of patients | 47 | ||
| Male, n (%) | 31 (66.0) | ||
| Female, n (%) | 16 (34.0) | ||
| Age at bioprosthetic valve implant, y | Age at bioprosthesis explant, y | ||
| Mean±SE | 55.7±2.3 | Mean±SE | 64.6±2.1 |
| Range | 24–78 | Range | 31–86 |
| New York Heart Association, n (%) | Comorbidity, n (%) | ||
| Class I | 2 (4.3) | Bicuspid aortic valve | 20 (42.6) |
| Class II | 14 (29.8) | Coronary artery disease | 16 (34.0) |
| Class III | 22 (46.8) | Peripheral arterial disease | 3 (6.4) |
| Class IV | 9 (19.1) | Diabetes mellitus | 11 (23.4) |
| Diabetes mellitus and CABG | 7 (14.9) | ||
| Bioprosthetic diagnosis at explant, n (%) | Hyperlipidemia | 24 (51.1) | |
| Stenosis | 20 (42.6) | Creatinine >2 mg/dL | 4 (8.5) |
| Regurgitation and stenosis | 20 (42.6) | Statin therapy | 22 (46.8) |
| Regurgitation | 7 (14.9) | ||
| Aortic gradient per ultrasound, mm Hg | Bioprosthetic valve size (mean duration, years), n (%) | ||
| Peak (mean±SE) | 68.0±4.1 | 19 mm (8.0±1.8) | 5 (10.6) |
| Mean (mean±SE) | 39.5±2.5 | 21 mm (8.8±1.1) | 9 (19.1) |
| 23 mm (6.9±0.7) | 12 (25.5) | ||
| Previous and concomitant surgery, n (%) | 25 mm (10.1±1.0) | 9 (19.1) | |
| None | 25 (53.2) | 27 mm (8.7±0.7) | 7 (14.9) |
| CABG | 16 (34.0) | 29 mm (8.6±0.9) | 5 (10.6) |
| CABG with bicuspid aortic valve | 5 (10.6) | ||
| CABG with tricuspid aortic valve | 11 (23.4) | ||
| Mitral valve repair | 4 (8.5) | Bioprostheses used, n (%) | |
| Mitral valve replacement | 6 (12.8) | Carpentier‐Edwards (bovine pericardial) | 32 (68.1) |
| Ascending aorta replacement | 9 (19.1) | Carpentier‐Edwards (porcine aortic valve) | 3 (6.4) |
| St. Jude (porcine aortic valve) | 7 (14.9) | ||
| Duration of implant, y | Sorin (bovine pericardial) | 3 (6.4) | |
| Mean±SE | 8.4±0.4 | Medtronic (porcine aortic valve) | 1 (2.1) |
| Range | 1.5 to 14.8 | Carbomedics (bovine pericardial) | 1 (2.1) |
CABG indicates coronary artery bypass grafting.
Figure 1Implant duration of bioprosthetic heart valve explants from 2010 to 2016. A, Freedom from reoperation in the entire population. B, Freedom from reoperation comparing male and female participants, P value not significant (NS). C, Comparisons between bovine pericardial (BP) and porcine aortic valve, P=NS. D, Significantly shorter implant duration in diabetic patients compared with nondiabetic patients (P=0.0269). E, Significantly earlier failure of BP bioprosthetic heart valve from coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients than non‐CABG patients (P<0.001).
Calcification and BHV Structural Valve Degeneration
| Group | Number Analyzed | Implant Duration (Y, Mean±SE) | Ca Content of Explant (μg/mg, Mean±SE) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unimplanted bovine pericardial leaflets | 5 | N/A | 7.07±0.30 |
| Unimplanted porcine aortic valve cusps | 5 | N/A | 0.60±0.08 |
| Entire explants population | 47 | 8.63±0.42 | 124.24±15.30 |
| BP explants | 36 | 8.52±0.43 | 142.00±16.95 |
| PAV explants | 11 | 8.94±1.24 | 66.28±29.49 |
| Stenosis | 20 | 7.77±0.62 | 153.64±23.23 |
| Regurgitation plus stenosis | 20 | 8.81±0.68 | 123.14±22.93 |
| Regurgitation only | 7 | 10.31±0.87 | 43.63±30.22 |
| DM | 11 | 7.16±0.66 | 168.79±30.99 |
| No DM | 36 | 9.05±0.49 | 110.68±17.18 |
| CABG | 16 | 6.89±0.73 | 124.81±27.75 |
| With DM | 7 | 7.30±0.85 | 169.19±37.98 |
| Non‐CABG | 31 | 9.61±0.44 | 124.00±18.58 |
| With DM | 4 | 6.93±1.19 | 168.09±61.29 |
BHV indicates bioprosthetic heart valve; BP, bovine pericardial; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; DM, diabetes mellitus; N/A, not assessed; PAV, porcine aortic valve.
Statistically significant differences between calcium content are shown comparing all explants and unimplanted (P<0.001, Welch t test), BP (bovine pericardial) and PAV (porcine aortic valve) explants (*P=0.035, Welch t test), and regurgitation only and stenosis only († P=0.049, 1‐way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc correction).
Figure 2Age effects, bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) pathophysiology, and implant duration in BHV explants with SVD. A, A significant inverse correlation (r=−0.348, P=0.008) was noted between age at initial surgery and implant duration. B, Leaflet calcium levels were not related to age at initial BHV surgery, P value not significant (NS). C, No trends were observed between implant duration and leaflet calcium levels, P=NS. D, BHV calcium (Ca) content comparing explant results from male and female participants, P=NS. E, Although mean Ca content of explanted BHVs from patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM) did not differ significantly, only 1 DM BHV had minimal Ca content compared with 14 of 36 non‐DM explants. F, No significant differences were noted in duration of bioprosthetic implants comparing participants with leaflet Ca levels >30 and >100 μg/mg and those with Ca <30 μg/mg, P=NS.
Oxidized Amino Acid Content of BHV Aortic Valve Explants
| BHV Subgroup | Number Analyzed | Oxidized Amino Acid Levels (μmol/mol Tyr, Mean±SE) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| di‐Tyr | Cl‐Tyr | m‐Tyr | o‐Tyr | NO2‐Tyr | Br‐Tyr | ||
| Unimplanted BP | 10 | 0.00±0.00 | 55.46±11.70 | 170.42±26.15 | 816.69±50.07 | 82.01±10.43 | 1334.41±131.10 |
| Unimplanted PAV | 5 | 0.00±0.00 | 223.49±50.49 | 1764.25±90.26 | 3715.67±188.35 | 66.65±18.02 | 541.58±47.68 |
| All explants | 47 | 227.55±33.27 | 70.56±10.65 | 254.46±29.04 | 771.33±70.55 | 31.56±5.75 | 800.13±65.41 |
| BP | 36 | 228.22±36.85 | 70.78±13.25 | 291.38±35.09 | 835.24±84.83 | 29.20±6.44 | 778.13±74.74 |
| PAV | 11 | 225.36±78.78 | 69.84±14.82 | 133.64±23.98 | 562.14±98.41 | 39.29±12.93 | 872.14±139.36 |
| Stenosis | 20 | 278.16±66.86 | 95.48±22.94 | 307.18±52.58 | 976.85±115.83 | 38.67±12.25 | 733.38±108.72 |
| Regurgitation plus stenosis | 20 | 199.60±37.82 | 53.14±7.55 | 248.18±39.16 | 662.73±101.37 | 26.27±5.69 | 880.60±99.46 |
| Regurgitation only | 7 | 162.83±36.30 | 49.12±7.04 | 121.80±16.60 | 494.41±57.77 | 26.36±3.15 | 760.91±135.27 |
| DM | 11 | 221.48±59.89 | 96.22±26.76 | 325.58±65.71 | 1207.18±115.15 | 27.19±7.73 | 938.01±143.41 |
| No DM | 36 | 229.41±39.83 | 62.72±11.17 | 231.81±31.75 | 638.15±72.23 | 32.89±7.16 | 758.00±72.99 |
| CABG | 16 | 284.12±49.20 | 100.78±25.71 | 259.63±54.90 | 880.76±123.01 | 28.08±6.79 | 1012.51±124.46 |
| With DM | 7 | 308.30±73.93 | 110.13±35.20 | 355.54±92.50 | 1279.19±153.11 | 24.39±10.66 | 1048.9±217.49 |
| Non‐CABG | 31 | 198.36±43.19 | 54.96±8.33 | 251.79±34.39 | 714.84±85.75 | 33.36±8.04 | 690.51±69.07 |
| With DM | 4 | 69.55±40.71 | 71.88±43.77 | 281.40±92.01 | 1081.16±176.55 | 69.55±40.71 | 745.36±59.32 |
BHV indicates bioprosthetic heart valve; BP, bovine pericardial; Br‐Tyr, 3‐bromotyrosine; CABG, coronary artery bypass grafting; Cl‐Tyr, 3‐chlorotyrosine; di‐Tyr, dityrosine; DM, diabetes mellitus; m‐Tyr, metatyrosine; NO2‐Tyr, nitrotyrosine; o‐Tyr, orthotyrosine; PAV, porcine aortic valve; Tyr, tyrosine.
P<0.001 for unimplanted comparisons (Welch t test), PAV explants vs unimplanted (Welch t test), and unimplanted bovine NO2‐Tyr vs implanted bovine NO2‐Tyr (Student t test).
P=0.028 (Welch t test).
P=0.001 (Welch t test).
P=0.007 (ANOVA with Games‐Howell).
P=0.003 (ANOVA with Games‐Howell).
P=0.017 (ANOVA with Games‐Howell).
P=0.17 (Student t test).
Figure 3Regional distribution of dityrosine (diTyr) in explanted bioprosthetic heart valves (BHVs). A, Sample preparation scheme from sewing cushion (SC), commissure (Co), free edge (FE), and middle area (Mid), as well as cross‐section of the leaflets. B, Dityrosine formation was significantly elevated in the midleaflet region (P=0.033, 1‐sample t test) and the cross‐section (P=0.027, 1‐sample t test) compared with the sections in which dityrosine was not detected, with no significant differences when compared with each other.
Figure 4Bioprosthetic heart valve (BHV) calcium (Ca) and 3‐chlorotyrosine (Cl‐Tyr) relationships. A, BHV leaflet Ca vs Cl‐Tyr in the entire sample set. B, BHV leaflet Ca vs Cl‐Tyr in patients without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) only. C, The correlation between leaflet calcium level and Cl‐Tyr in clinical BHV explants from CABG patients (r=0.62, P=0.01).