Clinical Analysis of Repeated Heart Valve Replacement

심장판막치환술 후 재치환술에 관한 임상연구

  • Kim, Hyuck (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanyang University Hospital, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Nam, Seung-Hyuk (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanyang University Hospital, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Kang, Jeong-Ho (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanyang University Hospital, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Kim, Young-Hak (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanyang University Hospital, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Lee, Chul-Burm (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Chon, Soon-Ho (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Shinn, Sung-Ho (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, College of Medicine, Hanyang University) ;
  • Chung, Won-Sang (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Hanyang University Hospital, College of Medicine, Hanyang University)
  • 김혁 (한양대학교 의과대학 서울병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 남승혁 (한양대학교 의과대학 서울병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 강정호 (한양대학교 의과대학 서울병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 김영학 (한양대학교 의과대학 서울병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 이철범 (한양대학교 의과대학 구리병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 전순호 (한양대학교 의과대학 구리병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 신성호 (한양대학교 의과대학 구리병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 정원상 (한양대학교 의과대학 서울병원 흉부외과학교실)
  • Published : 2007.12.05

Abstract

Background: There are two choices for heart valve replacement-the use of a tissue valve and the use of a mechanical valve. Using a tissue valve, additional surgery will be problematic due to valve degeneration. If the risk of additional surgery could be reduced, the tissue valve could be more widely used. Therefore, we analyzed the risk factors and mortality of patients undergoing repeated heart valve replacement and primary replacement. Material and Method: We analyzed 25 consecutive patients who underwent repeated heart valve replacement and 158 patients who underwent primary heart valve replacement among 239 patients that underwent heart vale replacement in out hospital from January 1995 to December 2004. Result: There were no differences in age, sex, and preoperative ejection fraction between the repeated valve replacement group of patients and the primary valve replacement group of patients. In the repeated valve replacement group, the previously used artificial valves were 3 mechanical valves and 23 tissue valves. One of these cases had simultaneous replacement of the tricuspid and aortic valve with tissue valves. The mean duration after a previous operation was 92 months for the use of a mechanical valve and 160 months for the use of a tissue valve. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross clamp time were 152 minutes and 108 minutes, respectively, for the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 130 minutes and 89 minutes, respectively, for the primary valve replacement group of patients. These results were statistically significant. The use of an intra aortic balloon pump (IABP) was required for 2 cases (8%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 6 cases (3.8%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. An operative death occurred in one case (4%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and occurred in nine cases (5.1%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. Among postoperative complications, the need for mechanical ventilation over 48 hours was different between the two groups. The mean follow up period after surgery was $6.5{\pm}3.2$ years. The 5-year survival of patients in the repeated valve replacement group was 74% and the 5-year survival of patients in the primary valve replacement group was 95%. Conclusion: The risk was slightly increased, but there was little difference in mortality between the repeated and primary heart valve replacement group of patients. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the issue of avoiding the use of a tissue valve due to the risk of additional surgery, and it is encouraged to use the tissue valve selectively, which has several advantages over the use of a mechanical valve. In the case of a repeated replacement, however, the mortality rate was high for a patient whose preoperative status was not poor. A proper as sessment of cardiac function and patient status is required after the primary valve replacement. Subsequently, a secondary replacement could then be considered.

목적: 심장판막치환술 시에 선택하는 판막에는 크게 기계판막과 조직판막이 있다. 두 가지는 각기 피할 수 없는 단점이 있는데 조직판막의 경우 판막의 퇴행성 변화에 따른 재수술이 가장 문제가 되며 판막재치환술의 위험도가 적다면 조직판막의 사용이 증가되리라 생각된다. 이에 저자들은 심장판막치환술 후 재치환술의 위험도 및 사망률을 심장판막 일차치환술과 비교 평가하였다. 대상 및 방법: 1995년 1월부터 2004년 12월까지 최근 10년간 본 병원에서 연속적으로 시행한 심장판막수술 환자 239명 중 심장판막치환술 후 재치환술을 받은 25명과 심장판막일차치환술을 받은 158명의 한자를 후향적으로 비교, 분석하였다. 결과: 심장판막 재치환술군과 심장판막 일차치환술군 간의 나이, 성별, 술전심박출률 등은 통계적으로 큰 차이가 없었다. 재치환군에서 첫 수술의 판막은 기계판막 3예, 조직판막 22예로 이중 대동맥판막과 승모판막을 동시에 조직판막으로 치환한 경우가 1명 있었으며, 재수술까지의 기간은 기계판막의 경우 92개월, 조직판막인 경우 평균 160개월이었다. 체외순환 및 대동맥차단의 평균시간은 재치환술의 경우 152분, 108분, 일차치환술의 경우 130분, 89분으로 통계적인 유의함을 보였다. IABP의 사용은 재치환술의 경우 2예(8%), 일차치환술은 6예(3.8%)로 차이를 보였으며, 수술사망은 재치환술의 경우 1예(4%), 일차치환술의 경우 9예(5.1%)였다. 술 후 합병증 중에서 술 후 48시간 이상의 인공호흡이 재수술에서는 13.6%, 1차 수술에서 5.7%로 차이를 보였고 다른 인자에서는 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 수술 후 평균 추적기간은 $6.5{\pm}3.2$년이고 재치환술 환자의 5년 생존율은 74%였으며 일차치환술의 경우 5년 생존율은 95%를 보여 유의한 차이를 보였다. 결론: 심장판막재치환술은 일차치환술과 비교하여 볼 때 수술 위험도는 약간 증가되나 사망률에서는 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 따라서 재수술 위험을 고려하여 조직판막을 너무 기피하는 것은 재고되어야 하며 다른 장점이 많은 조직판막의 선택적인 사용이 권장된다. 그러나 재치한술의 경우 술전 상태가 나빴던 환자에서 만기사망률이 높으므로 일차치환술 후 적절한 심장기능 및 환자상태의 평가가 필요하며 너무 늦지 않은 적정한 시기에 재치환술을 고려해야 겠다.

Keywords

References

  1. Edmunds LH. Thrombotic and bleeding complications of prosthetic heart valves. Ann Thorac Surg 1987;44:430-45 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(10)63816-7
  2. Akins CW. Results with mechanical cardiac valvular prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60:1836-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(95)00766-0
  3. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valves for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;19:893-904
  4. De Feo M, Renzulli A, Onorati F, et al. Initial clinical and hemodynamic experience with Edwards MIRA mechanical bileaflet valve. J Cardiovasc Surg 2003;40:25-30
  5. Chambers J, Ely JL. Early postoperative echocardiographic hemodynamic performance of the On-X prosthetic heart valve: a multicenter study. J Heart Valve Dis 1998; 7:569-73
  6. Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Munro AI, Miyagishima RT. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: a 21- year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:S40-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)01124-2
  7. Legarra JJ, Liorens R, Catalan M, et al. Eighteen-year follow up after Hancock II bioprosthesis insertion. J Heart Valve Dis 1999;8:16-24
  8. Mary DS, Bartek IT, Elimufti MEI, Pakrachi BC, Fayoumi SM, Inoescu MI. Analysis of risk factors involved in reoperation for mitral and tricuspid valve disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1974;67:333-42
  9. Syracuse DC, Bowman FO, Malm JR. Prosthetic valve reoperations factor influencing early and late survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1979;77:346-54
  10. Bosch X, Pomar JL, Pelletier LC. Early and late prognosis after repoeration for prosthetic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiocasc Surg 1987;8:567-72
  11. Pansini S, Ottino G, Forsennati PG, et al. Reoperation on heart valve prosthese : An analysis of operative risks and late result. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;50:590-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-4975(90)90195-C
  12. Magilligan DJ, Lam CR, Lewis CR, et al. Mitral valve - the third time around. Circulation 1978;58(suppl 1):36-8
  13. Craver JM, Jones EL, Mickcown P, et al. Porcine Cardiac xenograft valves, analysis of survival, valve failure, and explantion. Ann Thorac Surg 1982;34:16 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(10)60846-6
  14. Miller DC, Oyer PE, Mitchell RS, et al. Performce charactristics of the Starr-Edwards Model 1260 aortic valve prosthesis beyond the year. J Thorac Cardiocasc Surg 1984;88:193
  15. Cohn LH, Couper GS, Aranki SF, Kinchla NM, Collins JJ Jr. The long-term follow-up of Hancock modified orificeporcine bioprosthetic valve. J Card Surg 1991;6 Suppl 4:557-61 https://doi.org/10.1111/jocs.1991.6.4s.557
  16. Jamieson WR, Allen P, Miyagishima RT, et al. The Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine ioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990;99:543-61
  17. David TE, Armstrong S, Sun Z. The Hancock II bioprosthesis at 12 years. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66 Suppl 6: 95-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00318-X
  18. Khan SS, Trento A, DeRobertis M, et al. Twenty-year comparison of tissue and mechanical valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;122:257-69 https://doi.org/10.1067/mtc.2001.115238
  19. Cunanan CM, Cabiling CM, Dinh TT, et al. Tissue characterization and calcification potential of commercial bioprosthetic heart valves. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71 Suppl 5:417-21 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02493-6
  20. Akins CW, Buckley MJ, Daggett WM, et al. Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;65:1545-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00301-4
  21. Banbury MK, Cosgrove DM 3rd, White JA, Blackstone EH, Frater RW, Okies JE. Age and valve size effect on the long-term durability of the Carpentier-Edwards aortic pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72:753-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02992-7
  22. Antunes MJ, Santos LP. Performance of glutaraldehyde preserved porcine bioprosthesis as a mitral valve subsitute in a young population group. Ann Thorac Surg 1981;37:387 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(10)60761-8
  23. Hammond GL, Geha AS, Kopf GS, et al. Biological versus mechanical valves : Analysis of 1,116 valves inserted in 1012 adult patient with a 4,818 patient year and 5,327 valve year follow-up. J Thorac Cardiocasc Surg 1987;93:182
  24. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Valfre C, et al. Result of reoperation for primary tissue falure of pocrine bioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiocasc Surg 1985;90:564
  25. Carpentier SM, Shen M, Chen L, Cunanan CM, Martinet B, Carpentier A. Biochemical properties of heat-treated valvular bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71 Suppl 5:410-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02494-8
  26. Kassai B, Gueyffier F, Cucherat M, Boissel JP. Comparison of bioprosthesis and mechanical valves, a metaanalysis of randomized clinical trials. Cardiovasc Surg 2001;9:304-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0967-2109(01)00036-9
  27. Cen YY, Glower DD, Landolfo K, et al. Comparison of survival after mitral valve replacement with biologic and mechanical valves in 1139 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001;122:569-77 https://doi.org/10.1067/mtc.2001.115418
  28. Gill IS, Masters RG, Pipe AL, Walley VM, Keon WJ. Determinants of hospital survival following reoperative single valve replacement. Can J Cardiol 1999;15:1207-10
  29. Ataka K, Okada M, Yamashita C, et al. Valvular heart disease. a comparative study of results after primary operation, reoperation, and after multiple reoperation. Jpn J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;47:377-82 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03218029
  30. Bortolotti U, Milano A, Mossuto E, Mazzaro E, Thiene G, Casarotto D. Early and late outcome after reoperation for prosthetic valve dysfunction. J Heart Valve Dis 1994; 3:81-7
  31. Caus T, Albertini JN, Chi Y, Collart F, Monties JR, Mesena T. Multiple valve replacement increases the risk of reoperation for structurea degeneration of bioprdstheses. J Heart Valve Dis 1999;8:376-83