Influence of Prosthesis Type on Long-Term Survival after Re-replacement of Aortic Valve Prosthesis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1532/HSF98.20111167Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of the prosthesis type on early mortality and long-term survival after re-replacement of aortic valve prosthesis, especially in patients over 60 years old.
Methods: Late outcome of 223 patients who underwent a reoperation on the aortic valve and received a mechanical (mechanical group) or biological (biological group) heart valve prosthesis at a single institution were analyzed for survival and major valve-related complications, including structural valve deterioration, thromboembolism, hemorrhage, further reoperation, and valve-related mortality.
Results: Preoperative New York Heart Association class IV (P = 0.001), emergency procedure (P = 0.002), and endocarditis (P = 0.025) were significant risk factors for 30-day mortality rates, which were 8.4 % and 12.5 %, respectively (mechanical versus biological group, P = 0.361). A subanalysis of elective patients revealed a low risk of 30-day mortality of 2.4 % and 1.8 %, respectively. Event-free survival was comparable at 5 years (73.9% ± 3.6% versus 70.5% ± 6.5%, mechanical versus biological group) and 10 year (49.7% ± 5.0% versus 35.3% ± 9.8%, mechanical versus biological group). In a propensity-matched subanalysis, survival and event-free survival were comparable at 5 and 10 years in both groups.
Conclusion: The type of aortic valve prosthesis did not affect early outcome and late survival in patients who underwent valve replacement, and therefore, the current strategy favoring a biological aortic valve prosthesis for patients aged over 60 years in first-time operations could also be applied in re-replacement.
References
Aupart MR, Mirza A, Meurisse YA, et al. 2006. Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis for aortic calcified stenosis: 18-year experience with 1133 patients. J Heart Valve Dis 15: 768-75.nBernet FH, Baykut D, Grize L, et al. 2007. Single-center outcome analysis of 1,161 patients with St. Jude Medical and ATS open pivot mechanical heart valves. J Heart Valve Dis 16:151-8.nBlackstone EH. 2002. Comparing apples and oranges. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 123:8-15.nDavierwala PM, Borger MA, David TE, et al. 2006. Reoperation is not an independent predictor of mortality during aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 131:329-35.nEdmunds LH Jr, Clark RE, Cohn LH, et al. 1996. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Ad Hoc Liaison Committee for Standardizing Definitions of Prosthetic Heart Valve Morbidity. Ann Thorac Surg 62:932-5.nGummert JF, Funkat A, Krian A, et al. 2004. Cardiac surgery in Germany during 2004: a report on behalf of the German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 53:391-9.nKhan SS, Trento A, DeRobertis RN, et al. 2001. Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 122:257-69.nKulik A, Bédard P, Lam BK, et al. 2006. Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 30:485-91.nLau L, Jamieson WR, Hughes C, et al. 2006. What prosthesis should be used at valve re-replacement after structural valve deterioration of a bioprosthesis? Ann Thorac Surg 82:2123-32.nLund O, Bland M. 2006. Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 132:20-6.nMelby SJ, Zierer A, Kaiser SP, et al. 2007. Aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: risk factors for early and late mortality. Ann Thorac Surg 83:1651-6.nRahimtoola SH. 2003. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 41:893-904.nPotter DD, Sundt TM 3rd, Zehr KJ, et al. 2005 Operative risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 129:94-103.nRuel M, Chan V, Bédard P, et al. 2007. Very long-term survival implications of heart valve replacement with tissue versus mechanical prostheses in adults <60 years of age. Circulation 116(11 Suppl):1294-300.nSvennevig JL, Abdelnoor M, Nitter-Hauge S. 2007. Twenty-five-year experience with the Medtronic-Hall valve prosthesis in the aortic position: a follow-up cohort study of 816 consecutive patients. Circulation. 116:1795-800.nVogt PR, Brunner-LaRocca H, Sidler P, et al. 2000. Reoperative surgery for degenerated aortic bioprostheses: predictors for emergency surgery and reoperative mortality. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 17:134-9.n
