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

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Antunes, M. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Antunes, M. J.

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Vol 4, 257-262, Copyright © 1990 by European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery

ARTICLES

Mitral valvuloplasty, a better alternative. Comparative study between valve reconstruction and replacement for rheumatic mitral valve disease

MJ Antunes
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Valvuloplasty is now a well accepted alternative method of surgical treatment of mitral valve disease. To analyse its relative performance in rheumatic valvulopathies, three groups of patients who had mitral valvuloplasty (1980-1984; 241 patients) or mitral valve replacement with mechanical (1980-1984; 386 patients) or biological prostheses (1976-1980; 289 patients) were reviewed. The early mortality was 3.3% for valvuloplasty, 7.8% for mechanical valve replacement and 6.6% for bioprostheses (P less than 0.05). Late mortality occurred at the rate of 2.6% per patient year (15 patients) for valvuloplasty, 5.7% per patient year (70 patients) for mechanical valves and 7.4% per patient year (41 patients) for bioprostheses (P less than 0.01), but valve- related mortality was 1.0% per patient year, 2.5% per patient year and 4.2% per patient year, respectively (P less than 0.01). Reoperation was more frequent after valve replacement with bioprostheses (6.7% per patient year) than after valvuloplasty (4.3% per patient year) and after mechanical valve replacement (1.5% per patient year; P less than 0.02), and was necessitated mainly by residual or recurrent valve dysfunction after valvuloplasty, bland or infected periprosthetic leaks in mechanical valves and degradation of bioprostheses. Valve failure occurred at the rate of 6.1% per patient year for valvuloplasty, 5.7% per patient year for mechanical valves and 11.1% per patient year for bioprostheses (P less than 0.05). In actuarial terms, global survival and survival free from valve related complications were 90% +/- 4% and 70% +/- 6% for patients who had valvuloplasty, 76% +/- 3% and 71% +/- 5% for the mechanical prosthetic replacement group and 62% +/- 7% and 30% +/- 7% for bioprosthetic valve replacement.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. R. Jessurun, N. M. van Hemel, J. C. Kelder, S. Elbers, A. B. de la Riviere, J. J.A.M. Defauw, and J. M.P.G. Ernst Mitral valve surgery and atrial fibrillation: is atrial fibrillation surgery also needed? Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., May 1, 2000; 17(5): 530 - 537. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M.J. Antunes Mitral valve repair into the 1990s Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., January 1, 1992; 6(suppl_1): S13 - S16. [Abstract] [PDF]