Durability and outcome of aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair versus double valve replacement.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to evaluate morbidity and mortality after double valve replacement (DVR) and aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair (AVR + MVP).
From 1977 to 2000, 379 patients underwent DVR (n = 299) or AVR + MVP (n = 80). Actuarial survival and freedom from reoperation were determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. Potential predictors of mortality and reoperation were entered into a Cox multiple regression model. Propensity score was introduced for the multivariable regression modeling for adjustment of a selection bias.
Survival 15 years after surgery was similar between the groups (DVR, 81% +/- 3%; AVR + MVP, 79% +/- 7%; p = 0.44). Freedom from thromboembolic event at 15 years was similar between the groups (p = 0.25). Freedom from mitral valve reoperation at 15 years was significantly better for the DVR group (54% +/- 5%) as compared with the AVR + MVP group (15% +/- 6%; p = 0.0006), primarily due to progression of mitral valve pathology and early structural deterioration of bioprosthetic aortic valve used for patients with AVR + MVP. After AVR + MVP, freedom from mitral reoperation at 15 years was 63% +/- 16% for nonrheumatic heart diseases, and 5% +/- 5% for rheumatic disease (p = 0.04).
Although both DVR and AVR + MVP provided excellent survival, DVR with mechanical valves should be the procedure of choice for the majority of patients because of lower incidence of valve failure and similar rate of thromboembolic complications compared with AVR + MVP. MVP should not be performed in patients with rheumatic disease because of higher incidence of late failure.
- SourceAvailable from: Eugene H Blackstone[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the durability of repair of a bicuspid aortic valve with leaflet prolapse, and to identify factors associated with repair failure. From November 1988 to January 1997, 94 patients with a bicuspid aortic valve and regurgitation from leaflet prolapse had aortic valve repair. In 66 patients, the repair employed triangular resection of the prolapsing leaflet. The remainder underwent mid-leaflet plication of the prolapsing leaflet. Mean age was 38 +/- 10 years and 93% were male. Median follow-up was 5.5 years (range 0.2-9 years). Factors associated with aortic valve competence and durability were identified by multivariable logistic and hazard function analyses. Early valve competence was more difficult to achieve in patients with large, poor functioning ventricles (P = 0.02). Aortic valve reoperation was necessary in 12 patients that included three re-repairs and nine aortic valve replacements. Freedom from reoperation was 95, 87 and 84% at 1, 5 and 7 years, respectively. The instantaneous risk of reoperation was highest immediately after operation, and fell rapidly to approximately 2% per year and less after 2 years. The only risk factor identified was the presence of residual aortic regurgitation (trace to mild in 35 cases) on immediate intraoperative post-repair transesophageal echocardiography. Late aortic regurgitation did not progress detectably across time (P = 0.3). There were no deaths, early or late. Bicuspid aortic valve repair for prolapsing leaflet is a safe procedure with good intermediate-term outcome. However, any residual aortic regurgitation jeopardizes repair durability and initial repair achievement is more difficult in patients with dilated, poor functioning ventricles.European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 04/1999; 15(3):302-8. · 2.67 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study was undertaken to determine the durability of combined aortic and mitral valve repair. From 1979 through 1999, 158 patients underwent simultaneous aortic and mitral valve repair. Multivariable, multi-phase hazard function analysis was used to determine risk factors for the outcomes of death and reoperation. Hospital mortality was 3%. Survival after operation was 97%, 93%, 82%, and 62% after 30 days and 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Risk factors for late death included aortic stenosis (p = 0.0001), older age (p = 0.002), and abnormal left ventricular function (p = 0.007). Thirty-six patients required reoperation for valvular dysfunction, and freedom from reoperation was 94%, 82%, and 65% after 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Risk factors for reoperation included severe aortic regurgitation (p = 0.004), aortic cusp shaving (p = 0.05), mitral valve chordal transfer (p = 0.004), and bovine pericardial annuloplasty (p = 0.002). Five-year freedoms from endocarditis, thromboembolism, and hemorrhage were 97%, 98%, and 99%, respectively, with freedom from any of these valve-related morbidities of 99%, 95%, and 94% after 1, 5, and 10 years, respectively. Double valve repair is associated with acceptable late survival and excellent freedom from valve-related morbidity, but limited durability. Therefore, double valve repair should be reserved for patients who cannot be anticoagulated, and should be used with caution in patients with aortic stenosis, rheumatic valve disease, or anterior mitral leaflet pathology.The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 08/2001; 72(1):20-7. · 3.45 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Controversy still exists about the choice of aortic prosthesis in elderly patients. This study investigates valve- and anticoagulant-related morbidity and mortality in elderly patients after aortic valve replacement (AVR) with a biologic (BP) or mechanical prosthesis (MP). Between 1981 and 1995, 355 consecutive patients aged 70 years or older (mean, 74+/-4 years; range, 70 to 87 years) underwent isolated AVR. There were 222 (63%) replacements with an MP and 133 (37%) with a BP. Mean follow-up was 3.7+/-2.8 years (range, 3 months to 15 years), with a total follow-up of 1,214 patient-years. Hospital mortality was 7.6% (27 of 355), decreasing to 4.6% in the last 3 years. There were 55 late deaths, 33 in patients with MP and 22 in those with BP. At 10 years there was no significant difference between MP and BP recipients in the actuarial estimates of survival (51%+/-8% versus 33%+/-13%), freedom from valve-related death (82%+/-7% versus 72%+/-12%), and freedom from thromboembolism (84%+/-7% versus 94%+/-3%). In contrast, 10-year freedom from anticoagulant-related hemorrhages was 74%+/-8% for MP and 99%+/-1% for BP (p = 0.02). Only 1 structural deterioration occurred, in a patient with BP. Satisfactory early results can be obtained in elderly patients after AVR with both MP and BP. The comparable low late survival in the two groups was predominantly influenced by non-valve-related deaths. A higher incidence of anticoagulant-related hemorrhages limits the use of MP in elderly patients. Thus, in this population, BP should be preferred not just on the basis of their expected longer durability, but mainly to avoid the risk of anticoagulant-related hemorrhages.The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 01/1999; 66(6 Suppl):S82-7. · 3.45 Impact Factor