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 Author home page(s): Marc Ruel Alexander Kulik Fraser D. Rubens Roy G. Masters Thierry G. Mesana Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ruel, M. Articles by Mesana, T. G. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ruel, M. Articles by Mesana, T. G. Related Collections Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:364-370
© 2004 Elsevier Science NL

Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves

^a Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Suite 3403, Ottawa, Ont., Canada K1Y 4W7
^b Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1H 8M5

Received 19 October 2003; received in revised form 7 December 2003; accepted 15 December 2003.

^* Corresponding author. Address: Division of Cardiac Surgery, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, 40 Ruskin Street, Suite 3403, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4W7. Tel.: +1-613-761-4893; fax: +1-613-761-4713
e-mail: mruel{at}ottawaheart.ca

Objectives: Reoperation is a relatively common event in patients with prosthetic heart valves, but its actual occurrence can vary widely from one patient to another. With a focus on bioprosthetic valves, this study examines risk factors for reoperation in a large patient cohort. Methods: Patients (N=3233) who underwent a total of 3633 operations for aortic (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR) between 1970 and 2002 were prospectively followed (total 21179 patient-years; mean 6.6±5.0 years; maximum 32.4 years). The incidence of prosthetic valve reoperation and the impact of patient- and valve-related variables were determined with actual and actuarial methods. Results: Fifteen-year actual freedom from all-cause reoperation was 94.1% for aortic mechanical valves, 61.4% for aortic bioprosthetic valves, 94.8% for mitral mechanical valves, and 63.3% for mitral bioprosthetic valves. In both aortic and mitral positions, current bioprosthesis models had significantly better durability than discontinued bioprostheses (15-year reoperation odds-ratio 0.11±0.04; P<0.001 for aortic, and 0.42±0.14; P=0.009 for mitral). Current bioprostheses were significantly more durable in the aortic position than in the mitral position (14.3±6.8% more freedom from 15-year reoperation; P=0.018). Older age was protective, but smoking was an independent risk factor for reoperation after bioprosthetic AVR and MVR (hazard ratio for smoking 2.58 and 1.78, respectively). In patients with aortic bioprostheses, persistent left ventricular hypertrophy at follow-up and smaller prosthesis size predicted an increased incidence of reoperation, while this was not observed in patients with mitral bioprostheses. Conclusions: These analyses indicate that current bioprostheses have significantly better durability than discontinued bioprostheses, reveal a detrimental impact for smoking after AVR and MVR, and indicate an increased reoperation risk in patients with a small aortic bioprosthesis or with persistent left ventricular hypertrophy after AVR.

Key Words: Valves • Follow-up studies • Prosthesis • Surgery • Complications

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. Eitz, S. Schenk, D. Fritzsche, A. Bairaktaris, O. Wagner, H. Koertke, and R. Koerfer International Normalized Ratio Self-Management Lowers the Risk of Thromboembolic Events After Prosthetic Heart Valve Replacement Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2008; 85(3): 949 - 955. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kulik and M. Ruel Reply to Wu and Grunkemeier Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., December 1, 2006; 30(6): 954 - 954. [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Bottio, M. Valente, G. Rizzoli, V. Tarzia, G. Bisleri, E. Pettenazzo, G. Gerosa, and G. Thiene Commissural dehiscence: a rare and peculiar cause of porcine valve structural deterioration. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., November 1, 2006; 132(5): 1017 - 1022. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Kulik, P. Bedard, B-K. Lam, F. D. Rubens, P. J. Hendry, R. G. Masters, T. G. Mesana, and M. Ruel Mechanical versus bioprosthetic valve replacement in middle-aged patients. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., September 1, 2006; 30(3): 485 - 491. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Ruel, H. Al-Faleh, A. Kulik, K. L. Chan, T. G. Mesana, and I. G. Burwash Prosthesis-patient mismatch after aortic valve replacement predominantly affects patients with preexisting left ventricular dysfunction: Effect on survival, freedom from heart failure, and left ventricular mass regression J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2006; 131(5): 1036 - 1044. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. V. Freeman and C. M. Otto Spectrum of Calcific Aortic Valve Disease: Pathogenesis, Disease Progression, and Treatment Strategies Circulation, June 21, 2005; 111(24): 3316 - 3326. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Ruel, A. Kulik, B. K. Lam, F. D. Rubens, P. J. Hendry, R. G. Masters, P. Bedard, and T. G. Mesana Long-term outcomes of valve replacement with modern prostheses in young adults Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., March 1, 2005; 27(3): 425 - 433. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]