Quality-of-life in valve-sparing aortic root replacement versus mechanical composite graft procedure

2008 ◽  
Vol 56 (S 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
ES Krähenbühl ◽  
FS Schönhoff ◽  
A Kadner ◽  
FF Immer ◽  
FS Eckstein ◽  
...  
2017 ◽  
pp. 572-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdel-Kémal Bori Bata ◽  
Nicolas D’Ostrevy ◽  
Bruno Pereira ◽  
Etienne Geoffroy ◽  
Nicolas Dauphin ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 775-781 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Stalder ◽  
Sabine Staffelbach ◽  
Franz F. Immer ◽  
Lars Englberger ◽  
Pascal A. Berdat ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 90 (6) ◽  
pp. 1862-1867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sossio Perrotta ◽  
Obaid Aljassim ◽  
Anders Jeppsson ◽  
Odd Bech-Hanssen ◽  
Gunnar Svensson

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 262.e15-262.e20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric J. Lehr ◽  
Peter Z.T. Wang ◽  
Antigone Oreopoulos ◽  
Hussein Kanji ◽  
Colleen Norris ◽  
...  

Cardiology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 133 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrienne Repack ◽  
Bulat A. Ziganshin ◽  
John A. Elefteriades ◽  
Sandip K. Mukherjee

Objective: To assess whether postoperative quality of life (QOL) for composite aortic root replacement patients differs according to whether it is based on the use of mechanical valves or bioprosthetic valves. Methods: The study included 146 consecutive patients who underwent composite aortic root replacement at our institution from January 2010 to April 2014 with bioprosthetic (34.9%, n = 51) and mechanical (65.1%, n = 95) valves. Patient-perceived QOL was measured by administering the Short Form (SF)-36v2 Health Survey and a series of supplemental questions to further evaluate valve-specific differences. Final survey participation (n = 121) included 82.9% of the qualifying patients, and involved 76.5% (39/51) of those with bioprosthetic valves and 86.3% (82/95) of those with mechanical valves. Reasons for not completing the survey included 5 expired patients (3.4%), 1 lost due to a language barrier (0.7%), 6 who refused to participate (4.1%) and 13 who were lost to follow-up (8.9%). The mean follow-up time was 32 months (range 4-56 months). Results: Patients in the bioprosthetic valve group were older (mean age 67.5 ± 13.6 years) and included more females (25.6% or 10/39) than those in the mechanical valve group (mean age 56.6 ± 12.0 years; 11.0% or 9/82 were female). No significant differences were found between the bioprosthetic and mechanical valve groups for any QOL aspects scored by the SF-36v2 survey. All 8 domains and 2 summary scales comprising the QOL evaluation were above national norms calculated using gender- and age-matched, norm-based scoring for a standard national average of 50. The supplemental questions indicated satisfaction with each valve type despite characteristics that were of concern to patients. In the mechanical valve group, 90.2% (74/82) reported that the audible valve click was not troublesome, 85.4% (70/82) that taking a blood thinner regularly did not affect daily life and 81.7% (67/82) that blood testing for anticoagulation therapy was not troublesome. Conclusions: Receiving a tissue or a mechanical valve does not directly affect postoperative QOL. Answers to supplemental questions suggest that prior concerns with mechanical valves do not affect patients in the commonly anticipated negative manner. The preconception of a heavy QOL burden for mechanical composite grafts is contradicted by this study.


Author(s):  
A. S. Ivanov ◽  
G. A. Akopov ◽  
T. N. Govorova ◽  
M. K. Lugovsky

This paper reviews the current main approaches to valve-sparing aortic root reconstruction. The advantages of valve-sparing surgeries are obvious - low mortality, longer survival, better quality of life of the operated patients, since the techniques save the heart's pumping reserves and free the patient from continuous intake of direct-acting oral anticoagulants and laboratory control of the hemostasis system, as well as other prosthesis-associated specific complications.


2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
P Blanke ◽  
F Beyersdorf ◽  
C Schlensak ◽  
R von Wattenwyl ◽  
G Pache ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. e68
Author(s):  
L. Di Marco ◽  
G. Gliozzi ◽  
C. Mariani ◽  
G. Murana ◽  
A. Leone ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document