Background And Aim Of The Study: Worldwide, there is increased use of bioprosthetic valves in the aortic position. Part of this increase has been patient-driven for quality of life reasons. More recently, bioprosthetic valves have been chosen by progressively younger patients, with a strategy of performing a valve-in-valve TAVI if the prosthesis should wear out. Thus, a review was undertaken of the present authors' experience with patients whose first two aortic valve replacements (AVRs) were with bioprosthetic valves.
Methods: Patients receiving consecutive bioprosthetic AVRs at the Green Lane Cardiothoracic Surgical Unit were identified from a departmental database. Data were retrieved from prospective databases, electronic and archived clinical records. Outcomes of interest were overall survival and freedom from a third or more AVR.
Results: A total of 267 patients met the inclusion criteria, with a mean follow up of 22.3 years. Concurrent procedures (e.g., coronary artery bypass grafting) were performed in 65.2% of patients that underwent two bioprosthetic AVRs, and in 79.8% of patients undergoing three or more bioprosthetic AVRs. Median survival of the cohort was 31.7 years. Age at operation was the best predictor of needing a third or more AVR. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis identified that age <45 years at the first operation and <56 years at the second operation were the optimal cut-off point for the likelihood of needing a third or more aortic valve intervention.
Conclusions: Overall survival for consecutive bioprosthetic AVRs was remarkably good. Data relating to consecutive bioprosthetic AVRs is of particular interest in the context of TAVI and valve-in-valve TAVI, which will likely significantly increase the number of patients receiving consecutive bioprosthetic valves. However, it must be noted that the majority of patients in this cohort required concurrent cardiac surgical procedures. The study results provided encouraging data for consecutive bioprosthetic AVRs, as well as data that may be of interest in the setting of TAVI being performed in younger cohorts of patients.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|
J Cardiovasc Med (Hagerstown)
August 2023
Department of Adult Cardiac Surgery, G. Pasquinucci Heart Hospital, Fondazione CNR-G. Monasterio, Massa, Italy.
Aims: We describe long-term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes in the largest single-centre cohort of patients who underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) with sutureless Perceval (CorCym, Italy) bioprosthesis.
Methods: Between March 2011 and March 2021, 1157 patients underwent AVR with Perceval bioprosthesis implantation. Mean age was 77 ± 6 years (range: 46-89 years) and mean EuroSCORE II was 6.
J Am Coll Cardiol
March 2022
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, Toronto General Hospital and the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address:
Background: The ideal aortic valve substitute for young and middle-aged adults remains elusive.
Objectives: This study sought to compare the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing the Ross procedure and those receiving bioprosthetic aortic valve replacements (AVRs).
Methods: Consecutive patients aged 16-60 years who underwent a Ross procedure or surgical bioprosthetic AVR at the Toronto General Hospital between 1990 and 2014 were identified.
J Cardiothorac Surg
September 2021
University Clinic of Cardiac Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Background: The choice of aortic valve replacement needs to be decided in an interdisciplinary approach and together with the patients and their families regarding the need for re-operation and risks accompanying anticoagulation. We report long-term outcomes after different AVR options.
Methods: A chart review of patients aged < 18 years at time of surgery, who had undergone AVR from May 1985 until April 2020 was conducted.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
December 2018
Cardiovascular Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, New York.
Use of bioprosthetic implants for surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) has been increasing in the recent years Surgical redo AVRs for failed surgical aortic bioprostheses have been traditionally considered the standard practice; however, in patients with higher surgical risk scores, transcatheter valve-in-valve aortic valve replacements are being commonly performed There is scarcity of data comparing these two approaches in this complex patient cohort Available data suggest that transcatheter ViV aortic valve replacement is generally a safe approach once some caveats are accounted for.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Card Surg
September 2018
Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate hospital readmission rates and clinical outcomes between bioprosthetic (bAVR) and mechanical (mAVR) aortic valve replacements (AVR).
Methods: Adults aged 50 years or older undergoing isolated or concomitant AVR between 2011 and 2017 were included. The primary outcome was 5-year hospital readmission.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!