Controversy exists regarding which valve type is best
|
|
- Wesley Bernard Martin
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Treatment of Endocarditis With Valve Replacement: The Question of Tissue Versus Mechanical Prosthesis Marc R. Moon, MD, D. Craig Miller, MD, Kathleen A. Moore, BS, Phillip E. Oyer, MD, PhD, R. Scott Mitchell, MD, Robert C. Robbins, MD, Edward B. Stinson, MD, Norman E. Shumway, MD, and Bruce A. Reitz, MD Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California Background. It remains unknown whether there is any important clinical advantage to the use of either a bioprosthetic or mechanical valve for patients with native or prosthetic valve endocarditis. Methods. Between 1964 and 1995, 306 patients underwent valve replacement for left-sided native (209 patients) or prosthetic (97 patients) valve endocarditis. Mechanical valves were implanted in 65 patients, bioprostheses in 221 patients, and homografts in 20 patients. Results. Operative mortality was 18 2% and was independent of replacement valve type (p > 0.74). Longterm survival was superior for patients with native valve endocarditis (44 5% at 20 years) compared with those with prosthetic valve endocarditis (16 7% at 20 years) (p < 0.003). Survival was independent of valve type (p > 0.27). The long-term freedom from reoperation for patients who received a biologic valve who were younger than 60 years of age was low (51 5% at 10 years, 19 6% at 15 years). For patients older than 60 years, however, freedom from reoperation with a biological valve (84 7% at 15 years) was similar to that for all patients with mechanical valves (74 9% at 15 years) (p > 0.64). Conclusions. Mechanical valves are most suitable for younger patients with native valve endocarditis; however, tissue valves are acceptable for patients greater than 60 years of age with native or prosthetic valve infections and for selected younger patients with prosthetic valve infections because of their limited life expectancy. (Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71: ) 2001 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Controversy exists regarding which valve type is best for patients with native (NVE) or prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). Studies comparing the use of bioprosthetic and mechanical valves for patients with endocarditis are limited [1 4], and the role that age plays in the selection process has not been critically addressed. The adverse influence of younger age on the durability of pericardial and porcine bioprosthetic valves for noninfectious indications has been reported in a number of recent large series [5 7]; however, the age criteria for implanting bioprosthetic valves may differ in patients with endocarditis, whose life expectancy may be substantially lower. The goals of the current investigation were to determine whether a bioprosthetic or mechanical prosthesis was best for patients with endocarditis who required valve replacement, and to determine the risk factors that portend lower operative survival rate and poor long-term prognosis after the surgical treatment of endocarditis. Accepted for publication Nov 6, Address reprint requests to Dr Miller, Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, Falk Cardiovascular Research Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA ; e- mail: dcm@leland.stanford.edu. Material and Methods This retrospective review includes 306 consecutive patients who underwent valve replacement for left-sided endocarditis on the full-time faculty service at Stanford University Medical Center from March 1964 through December There were 221 (72%) men and 85 (28%) women, with a mean age ( 1 SD) of years (87 patients were over 60 years of age). There were 209 patients with NVE and 97 patients with PVE. Those with PVE (55 14 years) were older than the subset with NVE (46 16 years) ( p 0.001). All patients were contacted for follow-up by telephone during a 5-month closing interval (March to July 1996). Cumulative long-term follow-up totaled 2,033 patient-years, and was 94% complete. The diagnosis of endocarditis was based on generally accepted clinical criteria, including appropriate combinations of fever, new or altered cardiac murmurs, systemic emboli, positive blood cultures, and echocardiographic findings. Characteristic valvular changes were confirmed both at operation and histopathologically. Endocarditis was defined as active (211 patients) versus healed (95 patients) based on whether a planned, standard course of antibiotic therapy had been completed before operation. Although this arbitrary distinction is not a direct index of the activity of the infectious process per se, it correlates with both the operative risk and pathological findings at 2001 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons /01/$20.00 Published by Elsevier Science Inc PII S (00)
2 Ann Thorac Surg MOON ET AL 2001;71: ENDOCARDITIS, TISSUE VS MECHANICAL VALVES 1165 Table 1. Type of Valve Implanted for AVR and MVR in Patients With NVE and PVE NVE PVE AVR MVR AVR MVR Mechanical Starr-Edwards caged-ball Bileaflet valves Bioprosthetic Hancock porcine Carpentier-Edwards porcine Homograft AVR aortic valve replacement; MVR mitral valve replacement; NVE native valve endocarditis; PVE prosthetic valve endocarditis. operation [8, 9]. The time from symptoms to treatment averaged days, while the time from initiation of medical treatment to operation was days. Topical and systemic hypothermia alone was used for myocardial protection in 107 (35%) patients, cold crystalloid cardioplegia was added in 158 (52%) patients, and cold blood cardioplegia in 41 (13%) patients. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was minutes, and aortic clamp time averaged minutes. Isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) was performed in 190 (62%) patients, isolated mitral valve replacement (MVR) in 89 (29%) patients, and combined AVR and MVR in 27 (9%) patients. Before 1976, Starr-Edwards mechanical caged-ball valves were implanted most often (61% mechanical, 27% bioprosthetic, 12% homograft); between 1976 and 1986, porcine bioprosthetic valves were implanted almost exclusively (98% bioprosthetic, 2% homograft); from 1987 to 1995, valve choice varied (25% mechanical, 65% bioprosthetic, 10% homograft) according to the judgment of the attending surgeon. The use of specific valve types is summarized in Table 1. Concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting was performed in 28 (9%) patients. Thirty-one patients (14% of those who underwent AVR) required aortic root replacement for extensive annular or aortic wall involvement. Seventeen of these patients underwent homograft root replacement, while 2 patients underwent mechanical and 12 patients underwent bioprosthetic composite valve-graft replacement. The responsible organisms for all patients are listed in Table 2. Streptococcal infections were common in both NVE and PVE; however, while Staphylococcus aureus was more common in NVE, S epidermidis predominated in PVE cases. Postoperative antibiotics were continued for days. Data Analysis Operative mortality included any death that occurred during the initial hospitalization or within 30 days of operation for discharged patients. Late complications were defined as residual endocarditis (infections with the same organism within 3 months for bacterial or within 2 years for fungal infections), recurrent endocarditis (an Table 2. Microorganisms Responsible for Native (209 Patients) and Prosthetic (97 Patients) Valve Endocarditis Native Prosthetic Staphylococcus aureus 44 (21%) 9 (9%) S epidermidis 4 (2%) 22 (23%) Streptococcus viridans 76 (36%) 17 (18%) Other streptococcal species 22 (11%) 6 (6%) Enterococcus 10 (5%) 9 (9%) Gram-negative bacillus 5 (2%) 3 (3%) Fungus 6 (3%) 4 (4%) Culture negative 13 (9%) 9 (9%) Other 11 (6%) 14 (14%) Unknown 18 (9%) 4 (4%) entirely new episode of endocarditis after documented curative therapy), or development of a bland periprosthetic leak, not necessarily requiring surgical correction. Long-term survival data included death from all causes. Continuous data are reported as mean 1 SD, and clinically important ratios with 70% confidence limits. Actuarial life-table survival estimates were calculated using the Cutler-Ederer method and compared using the Gehan technique (SPSS, Chicago, IL). Variability of the actuarial estimates was expressed as 1 SEM. Freedom from reoperation estimates were also determined using the actual, or cumulative incidence, method of analysis, which takes into account the competing hazard risk of death when calculating the probability of reoperation [10, 11]. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis (Cox proportional hazard model) was used to determine the preoperative and intraoperative risk factors that were significant, independent predictors of operative mortality and the development of a late complication. Thirty variables (see Table 4) were examined, including intraoperative factors (for example, myocardial protection with topical and systemic hypothermia alone vs cold crystalloid or blood cardioplegia) and complications related to visceral organ dysfunction, cardiac dysfunction, underlying comorbid disease, persistent sepsis, and the extent of the infection. Table 3. Postoperative Complications After Valve Replacement for Endocarditis (Excluding 12 Patients Who Died in the Operating Room) Reexploration for bleeding 24/294 (8%) Low output syndrome 100/294 (34%) Myocardial infarction 10/294 (3%) Renal failure 56/294 (19%) Respiratory failure 38/294 (13%) Tracheostomy 27/294 (9%) Cerebrovascular accident 15/294 (5%) Mediastinitis 13/294 (4%) Atrial arrhythmias 97/294 (33%) Ventricular arrhythmias 68/294 (23%) Heart block 28/294 (10%) Pacemaker insertion 15/294 (5%)
3 1166 MOON ET AL Ann Thorac Surg ENDOCARDITIS, TISSUE VS MECHANICAL VALVES 2001;71: Table 4. Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Preoperative and Intraoperative Variables Operative Mortality by Univariate Multivariate Variable t p F p Gender Male 43/221 (19%) Female 12/85 (14%) Age (years) 40 11/92 (12%) /72 (4%) /48 (15%) /65 (32%) 70 10/30 (25%) Valve Aortic 32/190 (17%) Mitral 19/89 (21%) Aortic and 4/27 (15%) mitral Diabetes mellitus Yes 12/32 (38%) NS No 43/274 (16%) Hypertension Yes 14/68 (21%) No 41/238 (17%) Hyperlipidemia Yes 5/17 (29%) No 50/288 (17%) COPD Yes 11/34 (32%) NS No 44/272 (16%) Preop renal insufficiency Yes 32/78 (41%) No 23/238 (10%) Preop liver dysfunction Yes 10/33 (30%) No 45/273 (17%) Preop CHF Yes 46/247 (19%) No 9/59 (15%) NYHA CHF class I 5/33 (6%) NS II 17/101 (17%) III 15/100 (15%) IV 18/71 (25%) Preop angina Yes 9/34 (27%) No 46/272 (17%) Preop MI (acute) Yes 6/12 (50%) NS No 49/294 (17%) Preop MI (remote) Yes 9/34 (27%) No 46/272 (17%) Preop conduction abnormality Yes 21/73 (29%) NS No 34/233 (15%) Preop embolization Yes 17/95 (18%) No 38/211 (18%) Table 4. Continued Operative Mortality by Univariate Multivariate Variable t p F p Indication for operation CHF 35/218 (16%) NS Emboli 3/26 (12%) Sepsis 6/20 (30%) Poor prognosis 1/5 (20%) Combination 11/42 (26%) Organism Staph 27/79 (34%) Non-staph 28/227 (12%) Endocarditis classification I NVE 27/209 (13%) PVE 28/97 (29%) Endocarditis classification II Active 45/211 (21%) NS Healed 10/95 (11%) Prior history of endocarditis Yes 5/32 (16%) No 50/273 (18%) Emergency operation Yes 17/68 (25%) No 38/238 (16%) Operative year /59 (9%) /131 (18%) /116 (18%) Myocardial protection Hypothermia 16/106 (15%) Crystalloid 32/158 (20%) Blood 6/41 (15%) Valve type implanted Mechanical 12/65 (19%) Bioprosthetic 37/221 (17%) Homograft 6/20 (30%) Intraop culture Positive 18/72 (25%) Negative 32/223 (14%) Unknown 5/11 (46%) Vegetations Yes 37/179 (21%) No 18/127 (14%) Leaflet destruction Yes 26/188 (14%) NS No 29/118 (25%) Annular abscess Yes 30/118 (25%) NS No 25/188 (13%) Aortic aneurysm Yes 4/14 (29%) No 51/292 (18%) CHF congestive heart failure; COPD chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; MI myocardial infarction; NVE native valve endocarditis; NYHA New York Heart Association; PVE prosthetic valve endocarditis.
4 Ann Thorac Surg MOON ET AL 2001;71: ENDOCARDITIS, TISSUE VS MECHANICAL VALVES 1167 Results Operative Morbidity and Mortality Postoperative complications are summarized in Table 3. Atrial and ventricular arrhythmias were common, but heart block occurred in only 28 (10%) patients, 15 (54%) of whom required pacemaker insertion before discharge (6% of all operative survivors). The overall operative mortality rate was 18 2%, including 12 patients who died in the operating room. The most common causes of early death were left ventricular pump failure in 42%, multisystem organ failure in 25%, persistent sepsis in 20%, and cerebrovascular accident in 9%. Interestingly, the operative mortality rate did not change between the three time periods; 19 5% from 1964 to 1975, 18 3% from 1976 to 1986, and 18 4% from 1987 to 1995 ( p 0.78). Operative mortality risk as a function of preoperative and intraoperative variables is summarized in Table 4. With univariate analysis, 15 variables were associated with an increased operative risk; however, multivariate regression analysis identified only six factors were independent predictors of a higher probability of early mortality: (1) increased age ( p 0.008); (2) PVE versus NVE ( p 0.005); (3) Staphylococcal infection ( p 0.001); (4) positive intraoperative culture ( p 0.05); (5) renal dysfunction ( p 0.001); and (6) liver dysfunction ( p 0.03). Early survival was independent of the replacement valve type ( p 0.74). Fig 1. Long-term survival for patients with NVE and PVE. The numbers of patients at risk are indicated. Long-Term Results Of the 251 early survivors, there were 98 late deaths, and 18 patients were lost to follow-up. Median follow-up interval was 15.3 years, with the longest survivor alive 29 years after valve replacement for native mitral endocarditis. The most common causes of late death were myocardial failure in 47% (including myocardial infarction, arrhythmias, and sudden death), recurrent endocarditis in 14%, and various noncardiac causes in 39%. Of 135 patients alive at the time of follow-up, 98 (73%) were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I, 34 (25%) were in NYHA class II, and 3 (2%) were in NYHA class III. As expected, long-term survival was substantially lower with increasing age ( p 0.001). Survival at 15 years was 62 6% for patients less than 40 years of age, 45 7% for 40 to 49 years, 45 10% for 50 to 59 years, 23 8% for 50 to 59 years, 23 8% for 60 to 69 years, and 0 0% for those greater than 70 years. Long-term survival was significantly superior for patients with NVE (54 4% at 10 years, 44 5% at 20 years) compared with those with PVE (41 6% at 10 years, 16 7% at 20 years) ( p 0.003) (Fig 1). Excluding operative deaths, long-term survival was slightly higher for patients with NVE (63 4% at 10 years, 51 5% at 20 years) compared with those with PVE (51 5% at 10 years, 22 10% at 20 years) ( p 0.10). The estimate of patients alive without complications also tended to be lower, but statistically insignificantly so, for patients with PVE (10 years: 61 7% PVE vs 75 4% NVE; p 0.17). Multivariate regression analysis identified five factors to be independent predictors of developing a late complication: (1) increased age ( p 0.001); (2) PVE versus NVE ( p 0.03); (3) annular abscess ( p 0.02); (4) acute preoperative myocardial infarction ( p 0.03); and (5) emergency operation ( p 0.02). Late complications were not significantly related to the type of replacement valve ( p 0.90). Bioprosthetic Versus Mechanical Valves There was no significant difference in operative mortality rate according to whether a mechanical (12 of 65, 19 5%), bioprosthetic (37 of 221, 17 3%), or homograft (6 of 20, 30 10%) valve was selected ( p 0.74). Overall long-term survival was also similar at both 10 years (50 8% mechanical, 51 4% bioprosthetic, 40 12% homograft) and at 20 years (38 9%, 34 5%, 40 12%) ( p 0.27) (Fig 2). Similarly, survival was nearly identical in the different valve type groups if operative deaths were excluded at 10 years (62 9% mechanical, 61 4% Fig 2. Long-term survival for patients undergoing valve replacement with mechanical, bioprosthetic, or homograft valves. The numbers of patients at risk are indicated.
5 1168 MOON ET AL Ann Thorac Surg ENDOCARDITIS, TISSUE VS MECHANICAL VALVES 2001;71: bioprosthetic, 58 15% homograft; p 0.50) and also after 20 years (46 10%, 41 6%, 58 15%; p 0.5). Recurrent or residual endocarditis occurred in 34 of 251 (or 14%) of operative survivors, and 14 (41%) of them died as a consequence of their ongoing problems with infection. The incidence was similar for patients who had completed a standard medical therapy regimen before undergoing valve replacement (healed: 11 of 95, 12 3%) as it was for those who underwent surgical intervention before completing a full course of antibiotic treatment (active: 25 of 211, 12 2%) ( p 0.90). The linearized rate of recurrent or residual endocarditis during the first 5 years was % per patient-year for patients with PVE and % for patients with NVE ( p 0.49). After 5 years, the linearized rate of recurrent endocarditis was lower with PVE ( % per patient-year) and NVE ( %), but again were not significantly different between the two groups ( p 0.18). The linearized rate of recurrent or residual endocarditis during the first 5 years was % per patient-year in the mechanical valve cohort, % among those with bioprostheses, and % for the homograft valve recipients ( p 0.88 between groups). After 5 years, the linearized rates were lower ( % per patient-year mechanical, % bioprosthetic, and % homograft), but differences remained insignificant between groups ( p 0.25). Homograft recipients were excluded from the following analyses due to the small number of patients in each subgroup. For patients less than or equal to 60 years of age, overall long-term survival was similar in those who received a mechanical (61 9% at 10 years, 50 10% at 15 years) or a biologic (58 4% at 10 years, 52 5% at 15 years) valve ( p 0.29) (Fig 3A). For patients greater than 60 years of age, long-term survival tended to be lower in patients who received a mechanical valve (18 12% at 10 years) compared with those who received a biologic valve (31 6% at 10 years, 17 7% at 15 years) valves ( p 0.08) (Fig 3B); however, the number of older patients receiving mechanical valves was small (15 of 87, 17%). Complication-free survival was similar with either mechanical (72 8% at 10 years, 72 8% at 15 years) or bioprosthetic (73 4% at 10 years, 71 4% at 15 years) valve replacement ( p 0.9) (Fig 4). For all patients, the estimate of long-term estimate of freedom from reoperation was relatively high in those with mechanical valves (74 9% at 10 years, 74 9% at 15 years), but started to decline steeply by the 10th year for patients who received bioprosthetic valves (56 5% at 10 years, 22 6% at 15 years) ( p 0.64). In the bioprosthetic group, the indication for reoperation was structural valve degeneration (SVD) in 63% and recurrent/residual endocarditis or a bland periprosthetic leak in 35%. In the younger patients (less than or equal to 60 years of age), the actuarial freedom from reoperation estimate was low after bioprosthetic valve replacement (51 5% at 10 years, 19 6% at 15 years) (Fig 5A). Using the actual (cumulative incidence) method of analysis, the divergence narrowed between the mechanical (81 8% at 10 years, 77 9% at 15 years) and bioprosthetic valve Fig 3. Long-term survival after mechanical or bioprosthetic valve replacement for patients: (A) less than or equal to 60 years of age, or (B) greater than 60 years of age. The numbers of patients at risk are indicated. groups (64 4% at 10 years, 48 4% at 15 years). For patients greater than 60 years of age, the long-term actuarial freedom from reoperation was acceptable with either a mechanical (100 0% at 10 years) or a bioprosthetic (84 7% at 10 years, 84 7% at 15 years) valve (Fig 5B). On the other hand, using the actual method of analysis, the likelihood of being free from reoperation increased slightly in the older patients receiving bioprosthetic valves (91 6% at 10 years, 91 5% at 15 years). Comment Endocarditis remains associated with substantial morbidity and mortality despite improvements in medical and surgical management during the last three decades. Innovative operative techniques have been applied in selected patients, including mitral valve repair when leaflet destruction is not excessive and homograft root replacement when aortic annulus reconstruction is necessary for extensive extravalvular infections [12]. Mitral
6 Ann Thorac Surg MOON ET AL 2001;71: ENDOCARDITIS, TISSUE VS MECHANICAL VALVES 1169 Fig 4. Complication-free survival for patients undergoing valve replacement with mechanical, bioprosthetic, or homograft valves. valve repair is a very attractive option for patients with NVE, as long as adequate resection of all infected tissue does not compromise the durability of valve reconstruction. For aortic valve endocarditis, if greater than 50% of the annulus has been destroyed or there is extensive ventricular-aortic discontinuity, homograft root replacement may be preferable. For most patients with endocarditis, however, simple valve replacement remains the mainstay of surgical therapy. Aortic or mitral valve replacement is expedient, and can yield satisfactory longterm results for patients who otherwise have a dismal prognosis. In the current series, operative mortality rates were soberingly high (13 2% for NVE and 29 5% for PVE) but are consistent with those reported previously [8, 9] and with a recent statistical metaanalysis of 30 surgical series (12% NVE, 25% PVE) [12]. Historically, it has been suggested that bioprosthetic valves may be less susceptible to early recurrent endocarditis than mechanical valves, but that they may be more susceptible to late endocarditis due to infection of the tissue leaflets [13, 14]. An early review of 2,184 patients reported that resistance to infection, pathologic behavior once affected by PVE, and the survival rate after PVE were similar between bioprosthetic and mechanical valves [15]. Recent reviews have substantiated these findings with current reported linearized PVE rates of less than 1.0% per patient-year for bioprosthetic and mechanical valves [5 7, 14, 16]. In the current series, the linearized rate of recurrent or residual endocarditis was % per patient-year for NVE and % for PVE, and did not differ significantly between mechanical ( %) and bioprosthetic ( %) valves. Operative mortality and complication-free survival were also similar with mechanical and bioprosthetic valves. Infected bioprosthetic valves are, in general, more easily sterilized than mechanical valves if treatment is initiated before extension of the infection into the annulus occurs; for example, streptococcal bioprosthetic infections can be cured in 80% of patients with antibiotics as long as valvular dysfunction is not present [15, 17]. Infection of a bioprosthetic valve may, however, hasten structural valve degeneration due to injury to the bioprosthetic leaflets. This can also occur with homografts, where leaflet destruction and valvular dysfunction can occur early in the infective process, prompting surgical intervention despite the absence of annular extension [18]. Mechanical or bioprosthetic infections involving the sewing ring or annulus invariably necessitate valve rereplacement. In the current report, univariate analysis demonstrated that operative mortality was higher for patients with annular abscesses (25 4% vs 13 2%); while extravalvular extension was not an independent predictor of operative mortality, annular abscesses were associated with more late complications. Complete excision of all infected or necrotic tissue along with generous margins of clearly healthy tissue is the cornerstone of surgical treatment of patients with extravalvular involvement. Extensive debridement may necessitate novel, complex annular reconstructive techniques with or without homograft aortic root replacement in some cases [12, 19, 20]. Haydock and associates compared the use of freehand aortic homografts (78 patients) with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves (30 patients) in the surgical treatment of patients with active endocarditis [2]. They noted that with homografts, the hazard function for recurrent endocarditis had only a low constant phase, while with prosthetic valves, there was a high early hazard phase in addition to the low-hazard late constant phase. In the current report, only 20 homografts were implanted in highly selected patients with extensive destruction of surrounding cardiac structures, but 2 of 14 (14 9%) operative survivors developed recurrent endocarditis within 5 years. In this admittedly small subset of homograft patients, there was no apparent advantage to using this technique. Looking specifically at patients with prosthetic aortic infections, Lytle and coauthors found no difference in survival or freedom from reoperation if bioprosthetic, mechanical, or homografts where used for valve re-replacement ( p 0.64) [4]. Sweeney and colleagues from the Texas Heart Institute reviewed 185 patients who underwent mechanical (97 patients) or bioprosthetic (88 patients) valve replacement for endocarditis; mean follow-up time was 20 months [1]. They noted no difference in operative mortality between the groups, but found that reoperation for recurrent endocarditis or perivalvular leak was necessary in 15 (20% of operative survivors) of patients with a bioprosthetic valve but in only 5 (6% of operative survivors) mechanical valve recipients within 3 years. In contrast, freedom from reoperation in the current series was similar between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves at 3 years (86 5%, 87 3%) and at 5 years (86 5%, 84 3%). The Texas Heart group also suggested a small, but significant, survival advantage at 4 years (excluding operative deaths) with mechanical rather than bioprosthetic valves (87% vs 79%, p 0.05). In the current series, however, there was no difference in 4-year survival with mechanical or bioprosthetic valves (82 6%, 79 3%) or, more importantly, in late survival at 10 years (62 9%,
7 1170 MOON ET AL Ann Thorac Surg ENDOCARDITIS, TISSUE VS MECHANICAL VALVES 2001;71: Fig 5. Actuarial freedom from reoperation with mechanical or bioprosthetic valve replacement for patients: (A) less than or equal to 60 years of age, or (B) greater than 60 years of age. The numbers of patients at risk are indicated. The inset depicts freedom from reoperation using the actual or cumulative incidence method of analysis. 61 4%), 15 years (46 10%, 52 5%), or even 20 years (46 10%, 41 6%) ( p 0.50). In this context it is important to note that most of the bioprosthetic valves implanted in the Texas Heart series were Ionescu-Shiley pericardial valves; most of these were an early version with a Teflon (polytetrafluorethylene) sewing ring, which does not promote rapid tissue ingrowth as does the Dacron velour sewing rings used in later Ionescu-Shiley valves and many current valves. Furthermore, this particular type of early pericardial valve was prone to early SVD, and is no longer on the market. These factors may have played a role in the high early reinfection rate reported in their bioprosthetic recipients. In the current series, no Ionescu-Shiley valves were implanted; only stented Hancock or Carpentier-Edwards porcine valves were used. In younger patients, the long-term reoperation rate was higher with bioprosthetic valves than with mechanical valves due to SVD, but, as patient age increased, the freedom from reoperation rates converged. Accepting that there are many different opinions among surgeons and a myriad of exceptions to the standard rule, a reasonable initial age criteria for implanting biologic prostheses for noninfectious valvular disease is 70 years of age for MVR and 65 to 70 years of age for AVR, if no comorbidities exist that would otherwise limit life expectancy. Fann and associates reported that the actuarial estimate of freedom from reoperation was very high in patients greater than 70 years of age after bioprosthetic AVR (93 2% at 10 years) and MVR (84 6% at 10 years), but as patient age fell below 70 years, the reoperation rates progressively rose [5]. In the current series of
8 Ann Thorac Surg MOON ET AL 2001;71: ENDOCARDITIS, TISSUE VS MECHANICAL VALVES 1171 patients with endocarditis, freedom from reoperation appeared higher with mechanical valves in younger patients, but this risk was similar with either mechanical (100 0% at 10 years) or bioprosthetic (actuarial: 84 7% at 10 years, actual: 91 6% at 10 years) valves for patients greater than 60 years of age. It appears that for patients with infectious valvular disease, the age threshold for selecting a bioprosthetic valve should be lower than that for patients with noninfectious valvular disease. Furthermore, long-term survival was low in all patients with PVE (31 7% at 15 years, 16 7% at 20 years), suggesting that bioprosthetic valves may be appropriate for selected younger patients in this subset. The competing risk of death for patients with endocarditis markedly limits life expectancy, which means that fewer patients will actually live long enough to experience SVD of a tissue valve. This high competing hazard (eg, death) exemplifies the importance of using actual methods instead of actuarial techniques to examine what the true risk of a nonfatal valve-related complication is for individual patients; this is because the actuarial freedom curves overestimate the true incidence of such an event occurring. In summary, when valve replacement is necessary, we recommend mechanical prostheses for most patients with NVE who are less than 60 years of age, have no contraindication to long-term anticoagulation, and have a life expectancy that is otherwise not limited by other major medical problems. Bioprosthetic valves, on the other hand, are used for patients greater than 60 years of age with either NVE or PVE. Bioprosthetic valves are also acceptable for selected younger patients with PVE who have limited life expectancy, eg, coronary artery disease, left ventricular dysfunction, or end-stage renal failure. These data continue to argue strongly for early valve replacement (or repair) as the initial form of treatment for patients with congestive heart failure, in lieu of prolonged stabilization with medical therapy. Earlier surgical intervention, before the adverse multiorgan consequences of persistent infection and prolonged hemodynamic instability become manifest, may be the only way to improve the otherwise poor expected outcome in these often critically ill patients. References 1. Sweeney MS, Reul GJ, Cooley DA, et al. Comparison of bioprosthetic and mechanical valve replacement for active endocarditis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1985;90: Haydock D, Barratt-Boyes B, Macedo T, Kirklin JW, Blackstone E. Aortic valve replacement for active infectious endocarditis in 108 patients. A comparison of freehand allograft valves with mechanical prostheses and bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1992;103: Wos S, Janinski M, Bachowski R, et al. Results of mechanical prosthetic valve replacement in active valvular endocarditis. J Cardiovasc Surg 1996;37(6 Suppl 1): Lytle BW, Priest BP, Taylor PC, et al. Surgical treatment of prosthetic valve endocarditis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;111: Fann JI, Miller DC, Moore KA, et al. Twenty-year clinical experience with porcine bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1996;62: Jamieson WRE, Burr LH, Munro AI, Miyagishima RT. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: a 21-year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66(Suppl):S Poirer NC, Pelletier LC, Pellerin M, Carrier M. 15-year experience with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:S Baumgartner WA, Miller DC, Reitz BA, et al. Surgical treatment of prosthetic valve endocarditis. Ann Thorac Surg 1983;35: D Agostino RS, Miller DC, Stinson EB, et al. Valve replacement in patients with native valve endocarditis. What really determines operative outcome? Ann Thorac Surg 1985;40: Grunkemeier GL, Jamieson WRE, Miller DC, Starr A: Actuarial versus actual risk of porcine structural valve deterioration. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994;108: Grunkemeier GL, Anderson RP, Miller DC, Starr A: Timerelated analysis of nonfatal heart valve complications: Cumulative incidence (actual) versus Kaplan-Meier (actuarial). Circulation 1997;96(Suppl II):II Moon MR, Stinson EB, Miller DC. Surgical treatment of endocarditis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis 1997;40: Cohn LH. Valve replacement for infective endocarditis. An overview. J Cardiac Surg 1989;4: Agnihotri AK, McGiffin DC, Galbraith AJ, O Brien MF. The prevalence of infective endocarditis after aortic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995;110: Rossiter SJ, Stinson EB, Oyer PE, et al. Prosthetic valve endocarditis. Comparison of heterograft tissue valves and mechanical valves. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1978;76: Akins CW. Results with mechanical cardiac valvular prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60: Durack DT. Infective and noninfective endocarditis. In: Schlant RC, Alexander RW, ed. Hurst s The Heart, 8th ed. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994: Clarkson PM, Barratt-Boyes BG. Bacterial endocarditis following homograft replacement of the aortic valve. Circulation 1970;42: David TE, Feindel CM, Armstrong S, Sun Z. Reconstruction of the mitral anulus. A ten-year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995;110: Ergin MA, Raissi S, Follis F, Lansman SL, Griepp RB. Annular destruction in acute bacterial endocarditis. Surgical techniques to meet the challenge. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1989;97:
Reoperation for Bioprosthetic Mitral Structural Failure: Risk Assessment
Reoperation for Bioprosthetic Mitral Structural Failure: Risk Assessment W.R.E. Jamieson, MD; L.H. Burr, MD; R.T. Miyagishima, MD; M.T. Janusz, MD; G.J. Fradet, MD; S.V. Lichtenstein, MD; H. Ling, MD Background
More information15-Year Comparison of Supra-Annular Porcine and PERIMOUNT Aortic Bioprostheses
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION 15-Year Comparison of Supra-Annular Porcine and PERIMOUNT Aortic Bioprostheses WR Eric Jamieson, MD, Eva Germann, MSc, Michel R Aupart, MD 1, Paul H Neville, MD 1, Michel A Marchand,
More information16 YEAR RESULTS Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Mitral Pericardial Bioprosthesis, Model 6900
CLINICAL COMMUNIQUé 6 YEAR RESULTS Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Mitral Pericardial Bioprosthesis, Model 69 The Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Mitral Pericardial Valve, Model 69, was introduced into clinical
More informationThe operative mortality rate after redo valvular operations
Clinical Outcomes of Redo Valvular Operations: A 20-Year Experience Naoto Fukunaga, MD, Yukikatsu Okada, MD, Yasunobu Konishi, MD, Takashi Murashita, MD, Mitsuru Yuzaki, MD, Yu Shomura, MD, Hiroshi Fujiwara,
More informationCLINICAL COMMUNIQUE 16 YEAR RESULTS
CLINICAL COMMUNIQUE 6 YEAR RESULTS Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Mitral Pericardial Bioprosthesis, Model 6900 Introduction The Carpentier-Edwards PERIMOUNT Mitral Pericardial Valve, Model 6900, was introduced
More informationReconstruction of the intervalvular fibrous body during aortic and
Aortic and mitral valve replacement with reconstruction of the intervalvular fibrous body: An analysis of clinical outcomes Nilto C. De Oliveira, MD Tirone E. David, MD Susan Armstrong, MSc Joan Ivanov,
More informationClinical material and methods. Copyright by ICR Publishers 2003
Fourteen Years Experience with the CarboMedics Valve in Young Adults with Aortic Valve Disease Jan Aagaard 1, Jens Tingleff 2, Per V. Andersen 1, Christel N. Hansen 2 1 Department of Cardio-Thoracic and
More informationDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart and Lung Center, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden
Long-Term Outcome of the Mitroflow Pericardial Bioprosthesis in the Elderly after Aortic Valve Replacement Johan Sjögren, Tomas Gudbjartsson, Lars I. Thulin Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Heart
More informationCarpentier-Edwards Pericardial Valve in the Aortic Position: 25-Years Experience
SURGERY: The Annals of Thoracic Surgery CME Program is located online at http://www.annalsthoracicsurgery.org/cme/ home. To take the CME activity related to this article, you must have either an STS member
More informationP have been used for mitral and aortic valve replacement
A -Year Comparison of Mitral Valve Replacement With Carpentier-Edwards and Hancock Porcine Bioprostheses P. Perier, MD, A. Deloche, MD, S. Chauvaud, MD, J. C. Chachques, MD, J. Relland, MD, J. N. Fabiani,
More informationThe clinical experience reported in recent Western series has provided
Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease Yu et al Long-term evaluation of Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis for rheumatic heart disease Hsi-Yu Yu, MD a Yi-Lwun Ho, MD b Shu-Hsun Chu, MD c Yih-Sharng
More informationPrimary Tissue Valve Degeneration in Glutaraldehvde-Preserved Porcine Biomostheses: Hancock I Vekus Carpentier-Edwards at 4- to 7-Years Follow-up
Primary Tissue Valve Degeneration in Glutaraldehvde-Preserved Porcine Biomostheses: A Hancock I Vekus Edwards at 4- to 7-Years Follow-up Francisco Nistal, M.D., Edurne Artifiano, M.D., and Ignacio Gallo,
More informationDoes Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Affect Long-term Results after Mitral Valve Replacement?
Original Article Does Patient-Prosthesis Mismatch Affect Long-term Results after Mitral Valve Replacement? Hiroaki Sakamoto, MD, PhD, and Yasunori Watanabe, MD, PhD Background: Recently, some articles
More informationDurability of Pericardial Versus Porcine Aortic Valves
Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 44, No. 2, 2004 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation ISSN 0735-1097/04/$30.00 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.01.053
More informationLong-term results (22 years) of the Ross Operation a single institutional experience
Long-term results (22 years) of the Ross Operation a single institutional experience Authors: Costa FDA, Schnorr GM, Veloso M,Calixto A, Colatusso D, Balbi EM, Torres R, Ferreira ADA, Colatusso C Department
More informationSurgical treatment of native valve endocarditis (NVE)
Double Valve A. Marc Gillinov, MD, Ramon Diaz, MD, Eugene H. Blackstone, MD, Gösta B. Pettersson, MD, Joseph F. Sabik, MD, Bruce W. Lytle, MD, and Delos M. Cosgrove III, MD Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular
More informationI with antibiotics [I, 21. The characteristics of the offending
ORIGINAL ARTICLES Heart Valve Operations in Patients With Active Infective Endocarditis Tirone E. David, MD, Joanne Bos, RN, George T. Christakis, MD, Paulo R. Brofman, MD, David Wong, MD, and Christopher
More informationTHE IMPACT OF AGE, CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE, AND CARDIAC COMORBIDITY ON LATE SURVIVAL AFTER BIOPROSTHETIC AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT
THE IMPACT OF AGE, CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE, AND CARDIAC COMORBIDITY ON LATE SURVIVAL AFTER BIOPROSTHETIC AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT Gideon Cohen, MD Tirone E. David, MD Joan Ivanov, MSc Sue Armstrong, MSc
More informationA 20-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis
Acquired Cardiovascular Disease Mykén and Bech-Hansen A 2-year experience of 1712 patients with the Biocor porcine bioprosthesis Pia S. U. Mykén, MD, PhD, a and Odd Bech-Hansen, MD, PhD b Objective: The
More informationSurgical Treatment of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis
Surgical Treatment of Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis William A. Baumgartner, M.D., D. Craig Miller, M.D., Bruce A. Reitz, M.D., Philip E. Oyer, M.D., Stuart W. Jamieson, M.B., B.S., Edward B. Stinson, M.D.,
More informationSurgery for Active Culture-Positive Endocarditis: Determinants of Early and Late Outcome. Definitions
Surgery for Active Culture-Positive Endocarditis: Determinants of Early and Late Outcome Christos Alexiou, FRCS, Stephen M. Langley, FRCS, Helena Stafford, MBBS, John A. Lowes, FRCPath, Steven A. Livesey,
More informationThe St. Jude Medical Biocor Bioprosthesis
The St. Jude Medical Biocor Bioprosthesis Clinical Evidence of Long-term Durability Long-term Biocor Experience A Review and Comparative Assessment Long-term Biocor Stented Tissue Valve Studies Twenty-year
More informationIschemic mitral valve reconstruction and replacement: Comparison of long-term survival and complications
Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease Ischemic mitral valve reconstruction and replacement: Comparison of long-term survival and complications Eugene A. Grossi, MD Judith D. Goldberg, ScD Angelo
More informationOutcomes of Mitral Valve Repair for Mitral Regurgitation Due to Degenerative Disease
Outcomes of Mitral Valve Repair for Mitral Regurgitation Due to Degenerative Disease TIRONE E. DAVID, MD ; SEMIN THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG 19:116-120c 2007 ELSEVIER INC. PRESENTED BY INTERN 許士盟 Mitral valve
More informationDurability and Outcome of Aortic Valve Replacement With Mitral Valve Repair Versus Double Valve Replacement
Durability and Outcome of Aortic Valve Replacement With Mitral Valve Repair Versus Double Valve Replacement Masaki Hamamoto, MD, Ko Bando, MD, Junjiro Kobayashi, MD, Toshihiko Satoh, MD, MPH, Yoshikado
More informationORIGINAL PAPER. The long-term results and changing patterns of biological valves at the mitral position in contemporary practice in Japan
Nagoya J. Med. Sci. 78. 369 ~ 376, 2016 doi:10.18999/nagjms.78.4.369 ORIGINAL PAPER The long-term results and changing patterns of biological valves at the mitral position in contemporary practice in Japan
More informationEffect of Valve Suture Technique on Incidence of Paraprosthetic Regurgitation and 10-Year Survival
Effect of Valve Suture Technique on Incidence of Paraprosthetic Regurgitation and 10-Year Survival Sukumaran K. Nair, FRCS (C Th), Gauraang Bhatnagar, MBBS, Oswaldo Valencia, MD, and Venkatachalam Chandrasekaran,
More informationRead at the Twenty-fourth Annual Meeting of The Western Thoracic Surgical Association, Whistler, British Columbia, June 24-27, 1998.
STRUCTURAL VALVE DETERIORATION IN MITRAL REPLACEMENT SURGERY: COMPARISON OF CARPENTIER-EDWARDS SUPRA-ANNULAR PORCINE AND PERIMOUNT PERICARDIAL BIOPROSTHESES W. R. Eric Jamieson, MD a Michel A. Marchand,
More informationHani K. Najm MD, Msc, FRCSC FACC, FESC President Saudi Society for Cardiac Surgeons Associate Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery King Abdulaziz
Hani K. Najm MD, Msc, FRCSC FACC, FESC President Saudi Society for Cardiac Surgeons Associate Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery King Abdulaziz Cardiac Centre Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Decision process for
More informationPresenter Disclosure. Patrick O. Myers, M.D. No Relationships to Disclose
Presenter Disclosure Patrick O. Myers, M.D. No Relationships to Disclose Aortic Valve Repair by Cusp Extension for Rheumatic Aortic Insufficiency in Children Long term Results and Impact of Extension Material
More informationReoperations after primary aortic valve replacement
Third-Time Aortic Valve Replacement: Patient s and Operative Outcome Kasra Shaikhrezai, MD, MRCS, Giordano Tasca, MD, FETCS, Mohamed Amrani, PhD, FETCS, Gilles Dreyfus, MD, FETCS, and George Asimakopoulos,
More informationThe operative mortality associated with repeat heart valve surgery is. Repeat heart valve surgery: Risk factors for operative mortality
Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease Repeat heart valve surgery: Risk factors for operative mortality J. Mark Jones, MA, AFRCS a Hugh O Kane, MCh, FRCS a Dennis J. Gladstone, FRCS a Mazin A. I.
More informationHani K. Najm MD, Msc, FRCSC, FRCS (Glasgow), FACC, FESC President of Saudi Heart Association King Abdulaziz Cardiac Centre Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hani K. Najm MD, Msc, FRCSC, FRCS (Glasgow), FACC, FESC President of Saudi Heart Association King Abdulaziz Cardiac Centre Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Decision process for Management of any valve Timing Feasibility
More informationRe-do aortic valve replacement after previous homograft aortic root replacement
Re-do aortic valve replacement after previous homograft aortic root replacement Jullien Gaer, Toufan Bahrami, Fabio de Robertis, Ahmed Abdulsalam, John Pepper, NHS Foundation Trust, UK Professor Sir Magdi
More informationExpanding Relevance of Aortic Valve Repair Is Earlier Operation Indicated?
Expanding Relevance of Aortic Valve Repair Is Earlier Operation Indicated? RM Suri, V Sharma, JA Dearani, HM Burkhart, RC Daly, LD Joyce, HV Schaff Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester,
More informationT sors in the following aspects: the porcine aortic valve
Clinical and Hemodynamic Assessment of the Hancock I1 Bioprosthesis Tirone E. David, MD, Susan Armstrong, MSc, and Zhao Sun, MA Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, The Toronto Hospital and University of
More information42yr Old Male with Severe AR Mild LV dysfunction s/p TOF -AV Replacement(tissue valve) or AoV plasty- Kyung-Hwan Kim
42yr Old Male with Severe AR Mild LV dysfunction s/p TOF -AV Replacement(tissue valve) or AoV plasty- Kyung-Hwan Kim Current Guideline for AR s/p TOF Surgery is reasonable in adults with prior repair of
More informationAspirin or Coumadin as the Drug of Choice
Aspirin or Coumadin as the Drug of Choice for Valve Replacement with Porcine Bioprosthesis L. Nufiez, M.D., M. Gil Aguado, M.D., D. Celemin, M.D., A. Iglesias, M.D., and J. L. Larrea, M.D. ABSTRACT Eight
More informationThe use of mitral valve (MV) repair to correct mitral
Outcomes and Long-Term Survival for Patients Undergoing Repair Versus Effect of Age and Concomitant Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Vinod H. Thourani, MD; William S. Weintraub, MD; Robert A. Guyton, MD;
More informationThe Ross Procedure: Outcomes at 20 Years
The Ross Procedure: Outcomes at 20 Years Tirone David Carolyn David Anna Woo Cedric Manlhiot University of Toronto Conflict of Interest None The Ross Procedure 1990 to 2004 212 patients: 66% 34% Mean age:
More informationInfluence of patient gender on mortality after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis
Influence of patient gender on mortality after aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis Jennifer Higgins, MD, W. R. Eric Jamieson, MD, Osama Benhameid, MD, Jian Ye, MD, Anson Cheung, MD, Peter Skarsgard,
More informationby Age Groups W. R. E. Jamieson, M.D., L. J. Rosado, M.D., A. I. Munro, M.D., A. N. Gerein, M.D., L. H. Burr, M.D., R. T. Miyagishima, M.D.
Carpentier-Edwards Standard Porcine Bioprosthesis: Primary Tissue Failure (Structural Valve Deterioration) by Age Groups W. R. E. Jamieson, M.D., L. J. Rosado, M.D., A. I. Munro, M.D., A. N. Gerein, M.D.,
More informationManagement of Difficult Aortic Root, Old and New solutions
Management of Difficult Aortic Root, Old and New solutions Hani K. Najm MD, Msc, FRCSC,, FACC, FESC Chairman, Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery Cleveland Clinic Conflict of Interest None Difficult
More informationSurgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease
Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after mitral valve replacement W. R. E. Jamieson, MD, O. von Lipinski, MD, R. T.
More informationReplacement of the mitral valve in the presence of
Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients with Mitral Annulus Abscess Christopher M. Feindel Replacement of the mitral valve in the presence of an abscess of the mitral annulus presents a major challenge to
More informationEarly and One-year Outcomes of Aortic Root Surgery in Marfan Syndrome Patients
Early and One-year Outcomes of Aortic Root Surgery in Marfan Syndrome Patients A Prospective, Multi-Center, Comparative Study Joseph S. Coselli, Irina V. Volguina, Scott A. LeMaire, Thoralf M. Sundt, Elizabeth
More information";g. and Determinants of Risk. or 1,000 Patients, ery: Perioperative Mortality. Reoperations for Valve S
Reoperations for Valve S and Determinants of Risk ";g ery: Perioperative Mortality or, Patients, 98-984 Bruce W. Lytle, M.D., Delos M. Cosgrove, M.D., Paul C. Taylor, M.D., Carl C. Gill, M.D., Marlene
More informationNineteen-Millimeter Aortic St. Jude Medical Heart Valve Prosthesis: Up to Sixteen Years Follow-up
Nineteen-Millimeter Aortic St. Jude Medical Heart Valve Prosthesis: Up to Sixteen Years Follow-up Dilip Sawant, FRCS, Arun K. Singh, MD, William C. Feng, MD, Arthur A. Bert, MD, and Fred Rotenberg, MD
More informationW e have previously reported the results of a randomised
715 CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE Twenty year comparison of a mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses H Oxenham, P Bloomfield, D J Wheatley, R J Lee, J Cunningham, R J Prescott, H C Miller... See end
More informationMedtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: Assessment of 12-year performance
Medtronic Mosaic porcine bioprosthesis: Assessment of 12-year performance W. R. Eric Jamieson, MD, a Friedrich-Christian Riess, MD, b Peter J. Raudkivi, MD, c Jacques Metras, MD, d Edward F. G. Busse,
More informationRight-Sided Bacterial Endocarditis
New Concepts in the Treatment of the Uncontrollable Infection Agustin Arbulu, M.D., Ali Kafi, M.D., Norman W. Thorns, M.D., and Robert F. Wilson, M.D. ABSTRACT Our experience with 25 patients with right-sided
More informationNearly 40 years after the pioneering efforts of Starr and
Prognosis After Aortic Valve Replacement With a Bioprosthesis Predictions Based on Meta-Analysis and Microsimulation J.P.A. Puvimanasinghe, MBBS, MSc, MD; E.W. Steyerberg, PhD; J.J.M. Takkenberg, MD; M.J.C.
More informationCarpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis: Clinical performance over 20 years
Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular aortic porcine bioprosthesis: Clinical performance over 20 years W. R. Eric Jamieson, MD, Lawrence H. Burr, MD, Robert T. Miyagishima,
More informationTreatment of Infective Endocarditis:
Treatment of Infective Endocarditis: A 1-Year Comparative Analysis JAMES V. RICHARDSON, M.D., ROBERT B. KARP, M.D., JOHN W. KIRKLIN, M.D., AND WILLIAM E. DISMUKES, M.D. SUMMARY The results of surgical
More informationRESEARCH AND REVIEWS: JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES
e-issn:2322-0139 RESEARCH AND REVIEWS: JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGICAL STUDIES Comparative Evaluation of Safety Outcomes of Different Prosthetic Valves in Indian Subjects. Kama Raval 1 *, Reena
More informationand Coronary Artery Surgery George M. Callard, M.D., John B. Flege, Jr., M.D., and Joseph C. Todd, M.D.
Combined Valvular and Coronary Artery Surgery George M. Callard, M.D., John B. Flege, Jr., M.D., and Joseph C. Todd, M.D. ABSTRACT Between July, 97, and March, 975,45 patients underwent combined valvular
More informationPROSTHETIC VALVE ENDOCARDITIS Dr Bernard Prendergast DM FRCP EUROVALVE CONGRESS MADRID NOVEMBER 2013
PROSTHETIC VALVE ENDOCARDITIS Dr Bernard Prendergast DM FRCP EUROVALVE CONGRESS MADRID NOVEMBER 2013 Prosthetic Valve Endocarditis A Dangerous Disease Affects 1-6% of prosthetic valves Mechanical and biological
More informationTSDA Boot Camp September 13-16, Introduction to Aortic Valve Surgery. George L. Hicks, Jr., MD
TSDA Boot Camp September 13-16, 2018 Introduction to Aortic Valve Surgery George L. Hicks, Jr., MD Aortic Valve Pathology and Treatment Valvular Aortic Stenosis in Adults Average Course (Post mortem data)
More informationQuality Outcomes Mitral Valve Repair
Quality Outcomes Mitral Valve Repair Moving Beyond Reoperation Rakesh M. Suri, D.Phil. Professor of Surgery 2015 MFMER 3431548-1 Disclosure Mayo Clinic Division of Cardiovascular Surgery Research funding
More informationA valve was initiated at the Medical University of
St. Jude Prosthesis for Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement: A Ten-Year Experience John M. Kratz, MD, Fred A. Crawford, Jr, MD, Robert M. Sade, MD, Arthur J. Crumbley, MD, and Martha R. Stroud, MS Division
More informationA prospective evaluation of the Bjbrk-Shiley, Hancock, and Carpentier-Edwards heart valve prostheses
THERAPY AND PREVENTION VALVE REPLACEMENT A prospective evaluation of the Bjbrk-Shiley, Hancock, and Carpentier-Edwards heart valve prostheses PETER BLOOMFIELD, M.R.C.P., ARTHUR H. KITCHIN, F.R.C.P.. DAVID
More informationTissue vs Mechanical What s the Data??
Biological (Tissue) Valve in a 60 year old patient: Debate Tissue vs Mechanical What s the Data?? Joseph E. Bavaria, MD Immediate-Past President - Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Brooke Roberts-William
More informationVery Long-Term Survival Implications of Heart Valve Replacement With Tissue Versus Mechanical Prostheses in Adults <60 Years of Age
Very Long-Term Survival Implications of Heart Valve Replacement With Versus Prostheses in Adults
More informationMitral valve infective endocarditis (IE) is the most
Mitral Valve Replacement for Infective Endocarditis With Annular Abscess: Annular Reconstruction Gregory J. Bittle, MD, Murtaza Y. Dawood, MD, and James S. Gammie, MD Mitral valve infective endocarditis
More informationMechanical vs. Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Time to Reconsider? Christian Shults, MD Cardiac Surgeon, Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute
Mechanical vs. Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: Time to Reconsider? Christian Shults, MD Cardiac Surgeon, Medstar Heart and Vascular Institute Assistant Professor, Georgetown School of Medicine
More informationLONG-TERM OUTCOME AFTER BIOLOGIC VERSUS MECHANICAL AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT IN 841 PATIENTS
LONG-TERM OUTCOME AFTER BIOLOGIC VERSUS MECHANICAL AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT IN 841 PATIENTS David S. Peterseim, MD Ye-Ying Cen, MA Srinivas Cheruvu, MHS Kevin Landolfo, MD Thomas M. Bashore, MD James E.
More informationCONTRIBUTION. Aortic valve replacement in young patients: long-term follow-up
CONTRIBUTION Aortic valve replacement in young patients: long-term follow-up DOUGLAS S. MOODIE, MD; USAMA HANHAN, MD; RICHARD STERBA, MD; DANIEL J. MURPHY, Jr, MD; ELIOT R. ROSENKRANZ, MD; ANDREA M. KOVACS,
More informationSurgical Indications of Infective Endocarditis in Children
2016 Annual Spring Scientific Conference of the KSC April 15-16, 2016 Surgical Indications of Infective Endocarditis in Children Cheul Lee, MD Pediatric and Congenital Cardiac Surgery Seoul St. Mary s
More informationA Surgeon s Perspective Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease Adapted from the 2006 ACC/AHA Guideline Revision
A Surgeon s Perspective Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease Adapted from the 2006 ACC/AHA Guideline Revision Prof. Pino Fundarò, MD Niguarda Hospital Milan, Italy Introduction
More informationOutcome of elderly patients with severe but asymptomatic aortic stenosis
Outcome of elderly patients with severe but asymptomatic aortic stenosis Robert Zilberszac, Harald Gabriel, Gerald Maurer, Raphael Rosenhek Department of Cardiology Medical University of Vienna ESC Congress
More informationKinsing Ko, Thom de Kroon, Najim Kaoui, Bart van Putte, Nabil Saouti. St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
Minimal Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery After Previous Sternotomy Without Aortic Clamping: Short- and Long Term Results of a Single Surgeon Single Institution Kinsing Ko, Thom de Kroon, Najim Kaoui, Bart
More informationI operation may be necessary before infection is eradicated
Results of Homograft Aortic Valve Replacement for Active Endocarditis Ishik C. Tuna, MD, Thomas A. Orszulak, MD, Hartzell V. Schaff, MD, and Gordon K. Danielson, MD Section of Cardiovascular Surgery, Mayo
More informationTwenty-year experience with the St Jude Medical mechanical valve prosthesis
Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease Ikonomidis et al Twenty-year experience with the St Jude Medical mechanical valve prosthesis John S. Ikonomidis, MD, PhD John M. Kratz, MD Arthur J. Crumbley
More informationMidterm Surgical Outcomes of Noncomplicated Active Native Multivalve Endocarditis: Single-Center Experience
ADULT CARDIAC Midterm Surgical Outcomes of Noncomplicated Active Native Multivalve : Single-Center Experience Takeyoshi Ota, MD, PhD, Thomas G. Gleason, MD, Stefano Salizzoni, MD, Lawrence M. Wei, MD,
More informationThe Role Of Decellularized Valve Prostheses In The Young Patient
The Role Of Decellularized Valve Prostheses In The Young Patient Francisco Diniz Affonso da Costa Human Tissue Bank PUCPR - Brazil Disclosures Ownership and patent license of the SDS decellularization
More informationClinical outcomes of aortic root replacement after previous aortic root replacement
Clinical outcomes of aortic root replacement after previous aortic root replacement Luis Garrido-Olivares, MD, MSc, Manjula Maganti, MSc, Susan Armstrong, MSc, and Tirone E. David, MD Objective: The study
More informationLate incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves q
European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery 25 (2004) 364 370 www.elsevier.com/locate/ejcts Abstract Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves q Marc Ruel
More informationBicuspid aortic root spared during ascending aorta surgery: an update of long-term results
Short Communication Bicuspid aortic root spared during ascending aorta surgery: an update of long-term results Marco Russo, Guglielmo Saitto, Paolo Nardi, Fabio Bertoldo, Carlo Bassano, Antonio Scafuri,
More informationDeath and other time-related events after valve replacement
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY AND NATURAL HISTORY VALVE REPLACEMENT Death and other time-related events after valve replacement EUGENE H. BLACKSTONE, M.D., AND JOHN W. KIRKLIN, M.D. ABSTRACT A total of 1533 patients
More informationMechanical Tricuspid Valve Replacement Is Not Superior in Patients Younger Than 65 Years Who Need Long-Term Anticoagulation
Mechanical Tricuspid Valve Replacement Is Not Superior in Patients Younger Than 65 Years Who Need Long-Term Anticoagulation Ho Young Hwang, MD, PhD, Kyung-Hwan Kim, MD, PhD, Ki-Bong Kim, MD, PhD, and Hyuk
More informationThe CarboMedics bileaflet prosthetic heart was introduced
The CarboMedics Valve: Experience With 1,049 Implants José M. Bernal, MD, José M. Rabasa, MD, Francisco Gutierrez-Garcia, MD, Carlos Morales, MD, J. Francisco Nistal, MD, and José M. Revuelta, MD Department
More informationAccepted Manuscript. Simulating the trajectory of off-pump surgery- the heroic defense of the homograft. Ari A. Mennander, MD PhD
Accepted Manuscript Simulating the trajectory of off-pump surgery- the heroic defense of the homograft Ari A. Mennander, MD PhD PII: S0022-5223(18)31728-8 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.05.112 Reference: YMTC
More informationSurgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease ACD
Surgery for Acquired Cardiovascular Disease Clinical outcomes after separate and composite replacement of the aortic valve and ascending aorta Thanos Sioris, MD Tirone E. David, MD Joan Ivanov, PhD Susan
More informationResults of Mitral Valve Replacement, with Special Reference to the Functional Tricuspid Insufficiency
Results of Mitral Valve Replacement, with Special Reference to the Functional Tricuspid Insufficiency Ken-ichi ASANO, M.D., Masahiko WASHIO, M.D., and Shoji EGUCHI, M.D. SUMMARY (1) Surgical results of
More informationApril 16, 09:00-09:15 중앙대학교 윤신원
April 16, 09:00-09:15 중앙대학교 윤신원 When to perform Echocardiography in IE? Vegetations?(pathologic Whatever the level hallmark) of suspicion Intracardiac abscess? Confirm or R/O at the Earliest opportunity.
More informationEchocardiographic Evaluation of Mitral Valve Prostheses
Echocardiographic Evaluation of Mitral Valve Prostheses Dennis A. Tighe, M.D., FACC, FACP, FASE Cardiovascular Medicine University of Massachusetts Medical School Worcester, MA www.asecho.org 1 Nishimura
More informationPr Fadi FARHAT Service de Chirurgie Cardiovasculaire Adulte et Transplantation Hôpital Louis Pradel, Bron, FRANCE. NOM Intitulé du topo Date.
5 ème Journée Scientifique de la Réunion de Concertation Pluridisciplinaire sur l Endocardite Infectieuse du CHU de Lyon ENDOCARDITE AIGUE INFECTIEUSE Y A-T-IL UN SUBSTITUT VALVULAIRE IDEAL? Pr Fadi FARHAT
More informationChallenging clinical situation
Challenging clinical situation A young patient with prosthetic aortic valve endocarditis Gilbert Habib La Timone Hospital Marseille - France October 25 th 2014 Case report History of the disease Clinical
More informationMitroflow Synergy Prostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: 19 Years Experience With 1,516 Patients
Mitroflow Synergy Prostheses for Aortic Valve Replacement: 19 Years Experience With 1,516 Patients Kazutomo Minami, MD, Armin Zittermann, PhD, Sebastian Schulte-Eistrup, MD, Heinrich Koertke, MD, and Reiner
More informationery: Comparison of Predicted and Observed Resu ts
Preoperative Risk Assessment in Cardiac Sur K ery: Comparison of Predicted and Observed Resu ts Forrest L. Junod, M.D., Bradley J. Harlan, M.D., Janie Payne, R.N., Edward A. Smeloff, M.D., George E. Miller,
More informationThe risk-benefit ratio of mitral valve operation is
Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation: When Should We Operate? Malcolm J. R. Dalrymple-Hay, PhD, Mark Bryant, Richard A. Jones, MRCP, Stephen M. Langley, FRCS, Steven A. Livesey, FRCS, and James L. Monro,
More informationOutcomes After Surgical Treatment of Native and Prosthetic Valve Infective Endocarditis
Outcomes After Surgical Treatment of Native and Prosthetic Valve Infective Endocarditis Mahesh B. Manne, MD, MPH, Nabin K. Shrestha, MD, Bruce W. Lytle, MD, Edward R. Nowicki, MD, MS, Eugene Blackstone,
More informationSimultaneous Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement in Octogenarians: A Viable Option?
Simultaneous Aortic and Mitral Valve Replacement in Octogenarians: A Viable Option? Ariane Maleszka, MD,* Georg Kleikamp, MD, PhD,* Armin Zittermann, PhD, Maria R. G. Serrano, MD, and Reiner Koerfer, MD,
More informationIncidence of prosthesis-patient mismatch in patients receiving mitral Biocor porcine prosthetic valves
INTERVENTION/VALVULAR HEART DISEASE ORIGINAL ARTICLE Cardiology Journal 2016, Vol. 23, No. 2, 178 183 DOI: 10.5603/CJ.a2016.0011 Copyright 2016 Via Medica ISSN 1897 5593 Incidence of prosthesis-patient
More information2017 Cardiovascular Symposium CARDIAC SURGERY UPDATE: SMALLER INCISIONS AND LESS COUMADIN DAVID L. SAINT, MD
2017 Cardiovascular Symposium CARDIAC SURGERY UPDATE: SMALLER INCISIONS AND LESS COUMADIN DAVID L. SAINT, MD David L Saint M.D. Tallahassee Memorial Hospital Southern Medical Group Division of Cardiothoracic
More informationLong-Term Results With the Medtronic-Hall Valvular Prosthesis
Long-Term Results With the Medtronic-Hall Valvular Prosthesis Cary W. Akins, MD Cardiac Surgical Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts Background. Although more than 170,000 Medtronic-
More informationLate failure of transcatheter heart valves: An open question
Late failure of transcatheter heart valves: An open question A comparison with surgically implanted bioprosthetic heart valves. A. Rashid The Cardiothoracic Centre Liverpool, UK. Conflict of Interest Statement
More informationSurgery for Valvular Heart Disease. Reoperation of Left Heart Valve Bioprostheses According to Age at Implantation
Surgery for Valvular Heart Disease Reoperation of Left Heart Valve Bioprostheses According to Age at Implantation Vincent Chan, MD, MPH; Tarek Malas, MD; Harry Lapierre, MD; Munir Boodhwani, MMSc, MD;
More informationInterventional procedures guidance Published: 26 September 2014 nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg504
Transcatheter valve-in-valve e implantation for aortic bioprosthetic valve dysfunction Interventional procedures guidance Published: 26 September 2014 nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg504 Your responsibility This
More informationAortic Valve Replacement with Starr-Edwards Valves over 14 Years
Aortic Valve Replacement with Starr-Edwards Valves over 4 Years W. H. Wain, B.Sc., Ph.D., P. J. Drury, B.Sc., Ph.D., andd. N. Ross, F.R.C.S. ABSTRACT Three hundred thirteen patients underwent aortic valve
More information