Document Detail

What prosthesis should be used at valve re-replacement after structural valve deterioration of a bioprosthesis?
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  17126123     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: The fate of bioprostheses (BP) and mechanical prostheses (MP) after valve re-replacement for bioprostheses is not well-documented. This research compares the late fate of these two valve types after valve re-replacement for structural valve deterioration (SVD) of a bioprosthesis. METHODS: Between 1975 and 2000, 298 patients had successful aortic valve re-replacements (AVRR) (BP n = 149, average age = 67.1 +/- 12.3 years; MP 149, 58.9 +/- 10.9) and 442 patients had successful mitral valve re-replacements (MVRR) (BP 155, 65.8 +/- 14.1; MP 287, 60.8 +/- 11.7) after SVD of a previous BP. Follow-up was five years in all groups. RESULTS: (1) Aortic position (AVRR): Survival favored MP over BP overall, at 10 years (70.3 +/- 5.4% vs 56.7 +/- 5.7%, p = 0.0220). This survival advantage was seen to be significant only in patients less than 60 years of age (at 10 years, 85.3 +/- 4.9% vs 59.2 +/- 9.8%, p = 0.038). No significant difference in survival between the two valve types was observed in patient age groups greater than 60 years of age. Freedoms from valve-specific complications, including reoperation for SVD-thrombosis, major thromboembolism and hemorrhage, and valve-related mortality were not significantly different between the two groups overall. (2) Mitral position (MVRR): Survival favored MP over BP overall (58.6 +/- 4.2% vs 42.1 +/- 5.2%, p = 0.0011), and in patients greater than 70 years of age (32.8 +/- 8.9% vs 16.7 +/- 7.1%, p = 0.008). Freedoms from valve-specific complications and valve-related mortality favored MP over BP. CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinical performance difference between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in patients greater than 60 years of age upon AVRR. Mechanical valves generally outperformed bioprosthetic valves in all age groups in MVRR.
Lawrence Lau; W R Eric Jamieson; Clifford Hughes; Eva Germann; Florence Chan
Related Documents :
16784083 - Failure modes of the carpentier-edwards pericardial bioprosthesis in the aortic position.
18751463 - Surgical management of aortic valve disease in the elderly: a retrospective comparative...
23749333 - Short-term effect of verapamil on coronary no-reflow associated with percutaneous coron...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  The Annals of thoracic surgery     Volume:  82     ISSN:  1552-6259     ISO Abbreviation:  Ann. Thorac. Surg.     Publication Date:  2006 Dec 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2006-11-27     Completed Date:  2006-12-12     Revised Date:  -    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  15030100R     Medline TA:  Ann Thorac Surg     Country:  Netherlands    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  2123-32     Citation Subset:  AIM; IM    
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Age Factors
Bioprosthesis* / adverse effects
Heart Valve Prosthesis* / adverse effects,  classification
Heart Valve Prosthesis Implantation*
Middle Aged
Prosthesis Failure*
Retrospective Studies

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Malignant natural history of asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis: benefit of aortic valve replacemen...
Next Document:  Results of aortic valve replacement with a new supra-annular pericardial stented bioprosthesis.