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 Echevarria, J. R. Articles by Revuelta, J. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Echevarria, J. R. Articles by Revuelta, J. M.

European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Vol 5, 523-526, Copyright © 1991 by European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery

ARTICLES

Reoperation for bioprosthetic valve dysfunction. A decade of clinical experience

JR Echevarria, JM Bernal, JM Rabasa, D Morales, Y Revilla and JM Revuelta
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Hospital Nacional Valdecilla, University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain.

During the 1970s, initial clinical experience with bioprostheses determined their worldwide use. However, bioprosthetic reoperation (BPR) is now common, particularly in groups with extensive implantation of these valve substitutes. From January 1980 to December 1989, a total of 470 patients had a total of 618 reoperations for bioprosthetic dysfunction and were retrospectively analyzed. Eighty-seven patients required a second BPR, 21 a third BPR, 5 a fourth BPR and 1 patient a fifth BPR. Structural deterioration was the main cause of valve dysfunction for the first and second BPR. However, paravalvular leak and infective endocarditis were more frequent for the remaining additional reoperations. Hospital mortality was 12.6%, 14.9% and 37% after the first, second and third or subsequent BPR, respectively. Univariate statistical analysis shows as hospital mortality risk factors: age at the time of the surgery, preoperative NYHA functional class IV, emergency surgery, concomitant tricuspid surgery, double (mitro-aortic) valve dysfunction, active infective endocarditis as the cause of failure and prolonged aortic cross-clamping time. Hospital mortality declined from 19.8% to 11.8% for the first and second half decade, respectively (P less than 0.005). In conclusion, bioprosthetic valve reoperation entailed a higher hospital mortality, particularly in the risk group of patients. In our hands, surgical experience has determined the improvement of the clinical results in this group of patients.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. M. Bernal, D. Morales, C. Revuelta, J. Llorca, J. Gutierrez-Morlote, and J. M. Revuelta Reoperations after tricuspid valve repair J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., August 1, 2005; 130(2): 498 - 503. [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]

				A. M. Safi, T. Kwan, E. Afflu, A. Al Kamme, and L. Salciccioli Paravalvular Regurgitation: A Rare Complication Following Valve Replacement Surgery Angiology, June 1, 2000; 51(6): 479 - 487. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. S. Carr-White, S. Glennan, S. Edwards, F. D. Ferdinand, A. C. Desouza, J. R. Pepper, and M. H. Yacoub Pulmonary Autograft Versus Aortic Homograft for Rereplacement of the Aortic Valve : Results From a Subset of a Prospective Randomized Trial Circulation, November 9, 1999; 100(90002): II-103 - 106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]