Risk Factors of Redo-valve Replacement

판막재치환술의 위험인자

  • 최강주 (인제대학교 의과대학 부산 백병원 흉부외과학 교실) ;
  • 조광현 (인제대학교 의과대학 부산 백병원 흉부외과학 교실) ;
  • 김성룡 (인제대학교 의과대학 부산 백병원 흉부외과학 교실) ;
  • 이상권 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 흉부외과학 교실) ;
  • 전희재 (인제대학교 의과대학 부산 백병원 흉부외과학 교실) ;
  • 윤영철 (인제대학교 의과대학 부산 백병원 흉부외과학 교실) ;
  • 이양행 (인제대학교 의과대학 부산 백병원 흉부외과학 교실) ;
  • 황윤호 (인제대학교 의과대학 부산 백병원 흉부외과학 교실)
  • Published : 2002.11.01

Abstract

The results of reoperative valve replacement can be improved if appropriate analysis for the risk of reoperation was achieved. The purpose of our study was to analyze the results of reoperations for failure of bioprosthesis, and to define the risk factors in high-risk populations for reoperative procedures. Material and Method The series of 46 consecutive patients who had undergone first reoperative replacement for failed bioprosthesis between 1993 and 2001 were reviewed retrospectively. Mean age was 42 $\pm$ 12 years, mean body surface area was 1.52 $\pm$0.15 $m^2$. The reoperative procedure comprised of 36 MVR, 8 DVR, and 2 AVR. The first operation comprised of 2 DVR, 1 AVR, and 43 MVR. Factors which were choose to assess a predictor of results in reoperative valve replacement were sex, old age(>60 years), early age at first operation(<30 years), long interval between first and redo operation(.15years), poor NYHA functional class(>3), LV dysfunction(LVEF<45%), long operation time(>8hours), endocarditis, combined procedures, and renal insufficiency, Result : Overall mortality was 4.3%(2 cases). The risk factors that influenced postoperative complications and unexpected postoperative results were lower ejection fraction(p=0.012), older age(p=0.045), endocarditis(p=0.023), long operation time above 8 hours(p=0.027). There was no statistically significant factor influencing hospital mortality. Conclusion : No factor influenced the mortality. Better results could be achieved if reoferation was performed carefully in poor left ventricular function, old aged patient, and with endocarditis. Effort to shorten the operation time would be helpful on postoperative results.

판막재치환술의 결과는 재수술의 위험에 대한 적절한 분석으로 개선될 수 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 판막 재치환술의 결과를 통해 위험 인자를 분석하여 수술의 결과를 개선하고자 한다. 대상 및 방법 : 1993년 6월부터 2001년 8월까지 판막 재치환술을 시행한 46명의 환자를 대상으로 하였다. 대상 환자의 평균연령은 42 $\pm$ 12세였고 평균 체표면적은 1.52 $\pm$ 0.15 $m^2$였다. 재수술은 승모판막치환술 36예, 다중판막치환술 8예, 그리고 대동맥판막치환술 2예를 시행하였고 첫 판막치환술에서는 승모판막치환술이 43예, 다중판막치환술이 2예, 대동맥판막치환술이 1예였다. 판막 재치환술 후 결과의 예견인자로 분석한 인자들은 성별, 고령(60세 이상), 첫 수술이 30세 미만, 첫 수술과 재수술간의 기간이 15년 이상, 수술 전 NYHA functional class 3 이상, 수술 전 좌심실 구출율 45% 이하, 8시간 이상의 수술시간, 심내막염으로 재치환이 필요한 경우, 병행된 다른 수술의 유무, 신기능 부전 등이었다. 결과 : 사망률은 2예로 4.3% 였다. 수술 후 합병증과 그 외의 좋지 않은 예후와 관련이 있는 위험 인자들은 술전 저심박출증이 있던 경우(p=0.012), 60세 이상의 고령(p=0.045), 심내막염에 의한 재치환술(p=0.023), 8시간 이상의 긴 수술시간(p=0.027)이었다. 수술 사망에 영향을 주는 통계적으로 유의한 인자는 없었다. 결론 : 판막 재치환술에서 수술사망에 영향을 주는 인자는 없었다. 심기능이 나쁜 경우, 고령의 환자, 심내막염으로 인한 재수술에서 이환율을 줄이기 위한 주의를 기울여야 하며, 수술 시간을 단축하려는 노력이 수술 후 결과를 호전시키는 데 도움될 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

References

  1. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg v.122 no.2 Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement Khan SS;Trento A;DeRobertis M(et al.) https://doi.org/10.1067/mtc.2001.115238
  2. J Heart Valve Dis v.8 no.1 Eighteen-year follow up after Hancock Ⅱ bioprosthesis insertion Legarra JJ;Llorens R;Catalan M(et al.)
  3. Ann Thorac Surg v.71 no.SUP.5 Tissue characterization and calcification potential of commercial bioprosthetic heart valves Cunanan CM;Cabiling CM;Dinh TT(et al.) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02493-6
  4. Ann Thorac Surg v.65 Risk of reperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses Akins CW;Buckley MJ;Daggett WM(et al.) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00301-4
  5. Ann Thorac Surg v.72 no.3 Age and valve size effect on the long-tterm durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis Banbury MK;Cosgrove DM 3rd;White JA;Blackstone EH;Frater RW;Okies JE https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02992-7
  6. Ann Thorac Surg v.71 no.Sup.5 Biochemical properties of heat-treated valvular bioprostheses Carpentier SM;Shen M;Chen L;Cunanan CM;Martinet B;Carpentier A https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02494-8
  7. Cardiovasc Surg v.9 no.3 Comparison of bioprosthesis and mechanical valves, a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials Kassai B;Gueyffier F;Cucherat M;Boissel JP https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-2109(01)00036-9
  8. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg v.122 no.3 Comparison of survival after mitral valve replacement with biologic and mechanical valves in 1139 patiens Cen YY;Glower DD;Landolfo K(et al.) https://doi.org/10.1067/mtc.2001.115418
  9. Can J Cardiol v.15 no.11 Determinants of hospital survival following reoperative single valve replacment Gill IS;Masters RG;Pipe AL;Walley VM;Keon WJ
  10. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg v.47 no.8 Valvular heart disease. A comparative study of results after primary operation, reperation, and after multiple reoperation Ataka K;Okada M;Yamashita C(et al.)
  11. J Heart Valve Dis v.3 no.1 Early and late outcome after reoperation for prosthetic valve dysfunction Bortolotti U;Milano A; Mossuto E;Mazzaro E;Thiene G;Casarotto D
  12. J Heart Valve Dis v.8 no.4 Multiple valve replacement increases the risk of reoperation for structurea degeneration of bioprdstheses Mesena T;Albertini JN;Chi Y;Collart F;Monties JR;Mesena T
  13. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg v.20 Long-term results of multivalve surgery for infective multivalve endocarditis Mihaljevic T;Byrne JG;Cohn LH;Aranki SF https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(01)00865-X
  14. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg v.109 Reoperatiion on prosthetic heart valves Piehler JM;Blackstone EH;Bailey KR https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(95)70418-3
  15. Ann Thorac Surg v.42 Reoperation for vlave surgery: perioperative mortality and determinants of risk for 1,000 patients Lytle BW;Cosgrove DM;Taylor PC
  16. J Heart Valve Dis v.3 Early and late outcome atfer reoperation for prosthetic valve dysfunction: analysis of 549 patients during a 26-year period Bortolotti U;Milano A;Mazzuto E;Mazzaro E
  17. J Heart Valve Dis v.2 Reoperation in patients with a bioprosthesis in the mitral position: indications and early results Massucco A;Milano A;Mazzaro E;Bortolotti U
  18. Ann Thorac Surg v.60 no.SUP. Reoperation in biological and mechanical valve populations: fate of the reoperative patient Tyers GFO;Jamieson WRE;Munro AI https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(95)98959-X
  19. J Card Surg v.6 no.Sup.4 The long-term follow-up of Hancock modified orifice porcine bioprosthetic valve Cohn LH;Couper GS;Aranki SF;Kinchla NM;Collins JJ Jr. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.1991.6.4s.557
  20. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg v.99 The Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis Jamieson WR;Allen P;Miyagishima RT(et al.)
  21. Ann Thorac Surg v.66 no.Sup.6 The Hancock II bioprosthesis at 12 years David TE;Armstrong S;Sun Z https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00318-X
  22. Ann Thorac Surg v.66 no.Sup.6 Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: a 21-year experience Jamieson WR;Burr LH;Munro AI;Miyagishima RT https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)01124-2