|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:854-855
© 2006 Elsevier Science NL
Letter to the Editor |
Rush University Medical Center, 1653 West Congress Parkway, Chicago, IL 60612, United States
Received 29 January 2006; accepted 31 January 2006.
* Tel.: +1 312 9426370; fax: +1 312 9426052. (Email: heartandbones{at}yahoo.com).
Key Words: Valve disease
I would like to thank Dr Izumoto for his thoughtful comments regarding aortic valve repair. As he pointed out, many of the articles cited had a large percentage of rheumatic valves that were repaired. As rheumatic heart disease is a progressive and relentless type of pathology, the results with repair were much worse in this cohort than in those without the disease. Ideally, Dr Savage and I would have loved to separate out all those with rheumatic heart disease and compare the outcomes of repair to those without the condition, and that would be an exceptionally good publication! Unfortunately, since the individual articles that were included in our manuscript did not separate out the results by type of pathology in every instance, this was simply not possible. However, several articles, such as those by Al-Halees et al. [1], Duran et al. [2], Amano et al. [3], and Grinda et al. [4] had mostly rheumatic patients (78100%), which allowed us to draw the conclusions in the paper.
In addition, it is important to understand that one of the main reasons for attempting aortic valve repair is because the patients are young. The two main aortic valve pathologies found in young patients are rheumatic and congenital. Calcific or degenerative aortic disease will be found in older patients in whom we already have a good therapy: prosthetic replacement. There may not be much justification for attempting repair in these patients, and therefore it is important to describe the results in the specific patient population in whom repair has been tried, namely the young patient with rheumatic or congenital pathology. Thus far, repair does not seem to have durable results in the rheumatic population. We must hope that the congenital population will fare better.
Dr Izumoto's second point is also well taken. Many different types of repair were described in each case series and it was very difficult to ascertain which methods of repair were successful and which were not. It is currently unknown if a triangular resection may perform better than a leaflet placation. This is another area where future research will need to be done. I again thank Dr Izumoto for his insightful comments in an area where he has a great deal of expertise.
References
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |