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 Chukwuemeka, A. Articles by David, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Chukwuemeka, A. Articles by David, T. Related Collections Congestive Heart Failure Valve disease

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:133-138
© 2006 Elsevier Science NL

Aortic valve replacement: a safe and durable option in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function

Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto General Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Received 17 July 2005; received in revised form 8 November 2005; accepted 14 November 2005.

^_* Corresponding author. Address: Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, King's College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 207 3464341; fax: +44 207 3463433. (Email: andrew.sara{at}btinternet.com).

Background: The natural history of aortic valve disease associated with ventricular dysfunction is dismal. Aortic valve replacement (AVR) is associated with increased mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and the long-term outcome in these patients is not well-known. We evaluated perioperative outcomes and long-term results in patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function undergoing AVR. Methods: Retropective analysis identified 132 consecutive patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% who underwent AVR with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 1990 and 2003. Patients with other valve pathology were excluded. Results: Ages ranged from 29 to 94 years (mean 63 ± 12), and 117 patients (89%) were male. Preoperatively, 82% were in NYHA III–IV. Sixty patients (45%) underwent AVR for severe aortic stenosis (AS) whilst 72 (55%) had aortic insufficiency (AI). In the AS group, the mean LVEF and aortic valve area were 26 ± 4% and 0.8 ± 0.4 cm², respectively. AI patients had a mean LVEF of 27 ± 6% and a mean left ventricular end systolic diameter of 52 ± 9 mm. Fifty-seven (43%) required concomitant CABG. There were only three perioperative deaths (2.3%) and no strokes. One patient (0.8%) had postoperative renal failure, and one suffered a myocardial infarct. Nine patients (6.9%) required a postoperative IABP. LVEF increased to 29 ± 10% and 34 ± 12% after six months in the AS and AI groups, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 6.1 years and no differences between the AS and AI groups were observed with respect to either perioperative or long-term outcomes. Overall survival was 96%, 79% and 55% at 1, 5 and 10 years, respectively. Conclusions: The long asymptomatic course of AS and AI means that many patients have impaired ventricular function at diagnosis. This study demonstrates that AVR in such patients can be performed with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The outlook after surgery is excellent. A 10-year-survival of 55% compares favourably with heart transplantation and particularly with medical therapy. AVR is a safe, effective and durable option, which should not be denied to patients on the basis of low LVEF alone.

Key Words: Aortic valve replacement • Ventricular function • Outcome

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. A. Grossi, C. F. Schwartz, P.-J. Yu, U. P. Jorde, G. A. Crooke, J. B. Grau, G. H. Ribakove, F. G. Baumann, P. Ursumanno, A. T. Culliford, et al. High-Risk Aortic Valve Replacement: Are the Outcomes as Bad as Predicted? Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2008; 85(1): 102 - 107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]