Valvular heart diseases. (1). Chronic hemolysis following aortic valve replacement. Comparative study between St. Jude Medical valve and Bjoerk-Shiley valve prosthesis.

Valve defects or congenital/acquired heart defects are damage to the valve and/or subvalvular structures, which leads to impaired hemodynamics and the development of heart failure. Asymptomatic valvular heart disease is present in 2.5% of the population; with age, this figure rises to 13%. In the absence of permanent treatment, lesions of the heart valves significantly reduce the quality and duration of life. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) regularly review the effectiveness of new surgical treatments and reflect their findings in international guidelines. Today, minimally invasive surgery is the most effective and safe way to treat patients with valvular heart disease. The article presents two new methods for the treatment of valvular heart disease. Transapical mitral valve repair on a beating heart with neochord implantation (TOP-MINI) is a new MVP option that has been approved for patients with severe mitral regurgitation due to prolapse of the leaflet (s) or chord (grades 2-4). The new procedure with the NeoChord DS1000 device results in a significant reduction in mitral regurgitation and in reverse remodeling of the left ventricle and left atrium after 6 months of follow-up. Also reviewed is Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement (MAVR), which has been shown to be beneficial in improving patient satisfaction by minimizing pain and earlier recovery. Sutureless valves are preferred over traditional aortic valve replacement (AVR) due to the reduced operation time and the need for blood transfusion. The Perceval valve (Sorin, Sallugia, Italy) is a self-expanding bovine pericardial prosthesis placed in a nitinol stent designed to facilitate aortic valve implantation. A systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that the early clinical and hemodynamic characteristics of the Perceval valve are satisfactory and comparable to those of conventional AVRs. This literature review was carried out in accordance with the PRISM statement. The databases searched in this review included Pubmed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases for systematic reviews

Download Full-text

Prosthesis-Patient Mismatch Causes a Significantly Increased Risk of Operative Mortality in Aortic Valve Replacement

The Heart Surgery Forum ◽

10.1532/hsf98.2013304 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 127 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Muhammad Shahzeb Khan ◽

Faizan Imran Bawany ◽

Asadullah Khan ◽

Mehwish Hussain

Keyword(s):

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Operative Mortality ◽

Univariate Analysis ◽

Female Gender ◽

Valve Prosthesis ◽

Predictors Of Mortality ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Urgent Operation

Background: Small aortic prosthesis can lead to prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM). Implanting such small prosthesis remains a controversial issue. This study was done to investigate whether or not PPM causes an increased operative mortality in aortic valve replacement (AVR).Methods: Two-hundred-two consecutive patients undergoing primary AVR in a tertiary hospital were included. The sample was grouped according to the aortic valve prosthesis size: ?21 mm (small) and >21 mm (standard). The effect of variables on outcomes was determined by univariate and multivariable regression analyses.Results: PPM was found significantly more among patients with AVR ? 21mm (P < 0.0001). Moreover, the likelihood of mortality also was significantly higher in these patients (P < 0.0001). Univariate analysis demonstrated small prosthesis size, urgent operation, PPM, female gender, and NYHA Class IV as significant predictors of mortality. Multivariate regression identified female gender, PPM, and urgent operation as the key independent predictors of mortality.Conclusion: PPM and female gender are significant predictors of mortality. Care should be taken to prevent PPM by implanting larger prosthesis especially in females.

Download Full-text

Long-term survival after Carpentier-Edwards Perimount aortic valve replacement in Western Denmark: a multi-centre observational study

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery ◽

10.1186/s13019-021-01506-x ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Lytfi Krasniqi ◽

Mads P. Kronby ◽

Lars P. S. Riber

Keyword(s):

Risk Factors ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Significant Risk ◽

Valve Prosthesis ◽

Term Survival ◽

Long Term Survival ◽

All Cause Mortality

Abstract Background This study describes the long-term survival, risk of reoperation and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing solitary surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount (CE-P) bioprosthetic in Western Denmark. The renewed interest in SAVR is based on the questioning regarding the long-term survival since new aortic replacement technique such as transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) probably have shorter durability, why assessment of long-term survival could be a key issue for patients. Methods From November 1999 to November 2013 a cohort of a total of 1604 patients with a median age of 73 years (IQR: 69–78) undergoing solitary SAVR with CE-P in Western Denmark was obtained November 2018 from the Western Danish Heart Registry (WDHR). The primary endpoint was long-term survival from all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were survival free from major adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (MACCE), risk of reoperation, cause of late death, patient-prothesis mismatch, risk of AMI, stroke, pacemaker or ICD implantation and postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF). Time-to-event analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier curve, cumulative incidence function was performed with Nelson-Aalen cumulative hazard estimates. Cox regression was applied to detect risk factors for death and reoperation. Results In-hospital mortality was 2.7% and 30-day mortality at 3.4%. The 5-, 10- and 15-year survival from all-cause mortality was 77, 52 and 24%, respectively. Survival without MACCE was 80% after 10 years. Significant risk factors of mortality were small valves, smoking and EuroSCORE II ≥4%. The risk of reoperation was < 5% after 7.5 years and significant risk factors were valve prosthesis-patient mismatch and EuroSCORE II ≥4%. Conclusions Patients undergoing aortic valve replacement with a Carpentier-Edwards Perimount valve shows a very satisfying long-term survival. Future research should aim to investigate biological valves long-term durability for comparison of different SAVR to different TAVR in long perspective.

Download Full-text

Post hoc patient satisfaction with the choice of valve prosthesis for aortic valve replacement: results of a single-centre survey

Interactive Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery ◽

10.1093/icvts/ivab069 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Laure Bryssinck ◽

Siel De Vlieger ◽

Katrien François ◽

Thierry Bové

Keyword(s):

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Confidence Interval ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Odds Ratio ◽

Mechanical Valve ◽

Decisional Conflict ◽

Valve Prosthesis ◽

Post Hoc

Abstract OBJECTIVES Our goal was to examine post hoc patient satisfaction and the decision-making process of choosing a prosthesis for aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS We surveyed 113 patients who were operated on for AVR at 60–70 years of age, including 74 patients with a mechanical valve (MECH) and 39 with a bioprosthesis (BIO). The study focused on quality of life and the decision pathway in relation to prosthesis choice and valve-related complications. Decisional conflict was defined as the post hoc uncertainty perceived by patients regarding their choice of prosthesis. RESULTS The survey was performed at a median of 5.2 (3.2–8.1) years after the AVR. Patients with a biological valve were older (BIO: 68.4 years [66.2–69.4] vs MECH: 63.9 [61.9–66.7]; P < 0.001). Global post hoc satisfaction with prosthesis choice was high in both groups (MECH: 95.9%; BIO: 100%), and 85.1% (MECH) and 92.3% (BIO) of them would repeat their choice. Conflict about their decision was equal (MECH: 30.3%; BIO: 32.6%) for different reasons: MECH patients experienced more anticoagulation-related inconvenience (25.9% vs 0%), fear of bleeding (31.1% vs 0%) and prosthesis noise (26.2% vs 0%), whereas more BIO patients feared prosthesis failure (39.7% vs 17.4%) or reoperation (43.5% vs 18.1%). Active involvement in the decision (odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.85; P = 0.029) and adequate information about the prosthesis (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.14–0.86; P = 0.020) decreased the risk of conflict about the decision. CONCLUSIONS Although 30% of the responders showed a decisional conflict related to prosthesis-specific interferences, global patient satisfaction with the prosthesis choice for AVR is excellent. Increasing the patient’s involvement in the prosthesis choice through shared accountability and improved information is recommended to decrease the choice-related uncertainty.

Download Full-text