HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Jamieson, W.R.E. Articles by Lichtenstein, S.V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jamieson, W.R.E. Articles by Lichtenstein, S.V. Related Collections Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2003;24:873-878
© 2003 Elsevier Science NL

Re-operation for bioprosthetic aortic structural failure – risk assessment

331–332 Burrard Building, St Paul's Hospital, University of British Columbia, 1081 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6Z 1Y6, Canada

Received 30 December 2002; received in revised form 3 August 2003; accepted 20 August 2003.

^* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-604-806-8383; fax: +1-604-806-8384
e-mail: wrej{at}interchange.ubc.ca

Objective: The predominant complication of bioprostheses is structural valve deterioration and the consequences of re-operation. Prosthesis choice for aortic valve replacement surgery (bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses), is influenced by valve-related complications (mortality and morbidity) of the prosthesis type chosen. The purpose of the study is to determine the mortality and risk assessment of that mortality for aortic bioprosthetic failure. Methods: From 1975 to 1999, 3356 patients received a heterograft bioprosthesis in 3530 operations. The procedures were performed with concomitant coronary artery bypass (CAB) in 1388 procedures and without in 2142 procedures. Three hundred twenty-two re-operations for structural valve deterioration were performed in 312 patients with 22 fatalities (6.8%). Of the 322 re-replacements, 36 had CAB and 286 had isolated replacement; the mortality was 8.3% (3) and 6.6% (19), respectively. Eleven predictive factors inclusive of age, concomitant CAB, urgency status, New York Heart Association (NYHA) at Re-op and year of Re-op (year periods) were considered. Results: The mortality for 1979–1986 was 6.1% (2/33); 1987–1992, 7.7% (8/104); and 1993–2000, 6.5% (12/185) (pNS). The mortality by urgency status for elective/urgent was 6.4% (19/299); and emergent, 13.0% (3/23) (pNS). The mortality for NYHA I/II was 2.0% (1/50), III 4.2% (8/191) and IV 16.0% (13/81) (P=0.00063), for gender was male 4.6% and female 13.3% (P=0.011), for age at implant ‘No’ (no re-operation) 51.6±12.2 years and ‘Yes’ (yes re-operation) 59.9±7.3 years (P=0.00004), for age at explant ‘No’ 62.6±12.7 years and ‘Yes’ 70.6±6.5 years (P=0.00001), and for age at explant <60 years 0.0% (0/110), 60–70 years 8.5% (10/117) and >70 years 12.6% (12/95) (P=0.0011). The predictive risk factor assessment by multivariate regression analysis revealed only NYHA III Odds Ratio 1.7 and IV 7.8 P=0.0082. For the period 1993–2000 of re-operations only gender was significant; age at implant, age at explant, CAB pre-Re-op, CAB concomitant with Re-op, urgency at Re-op, ejection fraction, valve lesion and NYHA at Re-op were not significant. Conclusions: Bioprosthetic aortic re-operative mortality can be lowered by re-operation in low rather than medium to severe NYHA functional class. The routine evaluation of patients can achieve earlier low risk re-operative surgery.

Key Words: Aortic bioprostheses • Re-operative risk assessment • Optimal timing of re-operation

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Vicchio, A. Della Corte, L. S. De Santo, M. De Feo, G. Caianiello, M. Scardone, and M. Cotrufo Tissue Versus Mechanical Prostheses: Quality of Life in Octogenarians Ann. Thorac. Surg., April 1, 2008; 85(4): 1290 - 1295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Grunenfelder, A. Plass, H. Alkadhi, and M. Genoni Evaluation of biological aortic valve prostheses by dual source computer tomography and anatomic measurements for potential transapical valve-in-valve procedure Interactive CardioVascular and Thoracic Surgery, April 1, 2008; 7(2): 195 - 200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Walther, J. Kempfert, M. A. Borger, J. Fassl, V. Falk, J. Blumenstein, M. Dehdashtian, G. Schuler, and F. W. Mohr Human Minimally Invasive Off-Pump Valve-in-a-Valve Implantation Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2008; 85(3): 1072 - 1073. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Walther, V. Falk, T. Dewey, J. Kempfert, F. Emrich, B. Pfannmuller, P. Broske, M. A. Borger, G. Schuler, M. Mack, et al. Valve-in-a-Valve Concept for Transcatheter Minimally Invasive Repeat Xenograft Implantation J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 3, 2007; 50(1): 56 - 60. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Lau, W.R. E. Jamieson, C. Hughes, E. Germann, and F. Chan What Prosthesis Should Be Used at Valve Re-Replacement After Structural Valve Deterioration of a Bioprosthesis? Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2006; 82(6): 2123 - 2132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				V. Chan, W.R.E. Jamieson, E. Germann, F. Chan, R.T. Miyagishima, L.H. Burr, M.T. Janusz, H. Ling, and G.J. Fradet Performance of bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses assessed by composites of valve-related complications to 15 years after aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., June 1, 2006; 131(6): 1267 - 1273. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Determinants of operative mortality in valvular heart surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2006; 131(3): 547 - 557.

				P. M. Davierwala, M. A. Borger, T. E. David, V. Rao, M. Maganti, and T. M. Yau Reoperation is not an independent predictor of mortality during aortic valve surgery J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., February 1, 2006; 131(2): 329 - 335. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. J. Blot, M. A. Ibrahim, T. D. Ivey, D. E. Acheson, R. Brookmeyer, A. Weyman, J. Defauw, J. K. Smith, and D. Harrison Twenty-Five-Year Experience With the Bjork-Shiley Convexoconcave Heart Valve: A Continuing Clinical Concern Circulation, May 31, 2005; 111(21): 2850 - 2857. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. D. Potter, T. M. Sundt III, K. J. Zehr, J. A. Dearani, R. C. Daly, C. J. Mullany, C. G.A. McGregor, F. J. Puga, H. V. Schaff, and T. A. Orszulak Operative risk of reoperative aortic valve replacement J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., January 1, 2005; 129(1): 94 - 103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]