Midterm Results of the Bioprosthesis in Mitral Position

조직판막을 이용한 승모판 치환술의 중기 성적

  • Cho, Hyun-Jin (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Collage of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Won (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Collage of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Jung, Sung-Ho (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Collage of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Je, Hyoung-Gon (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Collage of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Choo, Suk-Jung (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Collage of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Song, Hyun (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Collage of Medicine, University of Ulsan) ;
  • Chung, Cheol-Hyun (Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Asan Medical Center, Collage of Medicine, University of Ulsan)
  • 조현진 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 이재원 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 정성호 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 제형곤 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 주석중 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 송현 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 흉부외과학교실) ;
  • 정철현 (울산대학교 의과대학 서울아산병원 흉부외과학교실)
  • Published : 2008.12.05

Abstract

Background: The choice between a bioprosthetic and a mechanical valve is an important decision in cardiac valve surgery, and the durability of the tissue valve is a major decision factor. We retrospectively evaluated the midterm results of bioprosthetic valve replacement in the mitral position. Material and Method: The subjects were all patients who had undergone mitral bioprosthesis replacement between July 1989 and August 200.7. Among the 216 patients, there were 236 surgical cases. The mean age was $63{\pm}15$ years, and the male to female ratio was 1 : 3. We retrospectively analyzed hospital and outpatient records such that the total follow-up duration amounted to 760.2 patient-years, and the mean follow-up duration was $41.9{\pm}40.7$ months (range $0{\sim}212$ months). Result: Early death occurred in 18 patients (8.3%), and 13 of these underwent concomitant cardiac procedures. The survival rate after 5 years was $79.9{\pm}3.5%$, and the survival rate after 8 years was $65.5{\pm}5.5%$, while freedom from structural valve deterioration (SVD) was $96.2{\pm}2.2%$ at 5 years and $85.9{\pm}5.3%$ at 8 years. Freedom from reoperation was $90.6{\pm}1.7%$ at 5 years and $90.4{\pm}4.2%$ at 8 years, while freedom from reoperation for SVD was $98.1{\pm}1.2%$ at 5 years and $92.3{\pm}4.1%$ at 8 years. On multivariate analysis of preoperative risk factors, small valve size (between 25mm and 27mm) was a significant risk factor for reoperation, and low LV ejection fraction (<40%) was a significant risk factor for SVD and mortality. Conclusion: Survival and freedom from reoperation for SVD in mitral bioprosthesis replacement had acceptable midterm results, but freedom from SVD Was relatively low. In particular, since SVD increased sharply at the eighth postoperative year, frequent follow-up and echocardiograms around that time will be helpful for the early detection of SVD. It will be necessary to conduct further studies involving long-term follow-up and more patients.

배경: 심장 판막 수술에서 조직판막 혹은 기계판막의 선택은 중요한 문제이고, 조직판막의 내구성이 그 결정에 주요한 역할을 한다. 본 연구는 승모판에서 조직판막 이식 후 중기 결과를 알아보고자 하였다. 대상 및 방법: 1989년 7월부터 2007년 8월까지 조직판막을 이용하여 승모판 치환술을 받은 모든 환자를 대상으로 하였다. 216명의 환자에서 236예의 수술을 시행하였으며 평균 연령은 $63{\pm}15$세, 남녀 비는 1 : 3이었다. 술 후 총 추적 관찰 기간은 760.2 patient-years, 평균 추적 관찰 기간은 $41.9{\pm}40.7$개월 ($0{\sim}212$개월)이었고, 외래 경과 기록과 의무 기록을 통해 후향적으로 분석하였다. 결과: 조기 사망은 18명(8.3%)이었고, 13명은 승모판 치환술과 다른 동반 수술을 같이 시행한 경우였다. 5년, 8년에서 생존율은 각각 $79.9{\pm}3.5%$, $65.5{\pm}5.5%$이었으며, 구조적 판막 손상으로부터의 5년, 8년 회피율(freedom from structural valve deterioration, SVD)은 각각 $96.2{\pm}2.2%$, $85.9{\pm}5.3%$이었다. 재수술의 5년, 8년 회피율(freedom from Reoperation)은 $96.0{\pm}1.7%$$, $90.4{\pm}4.2%$, 구조적 판막 손상으로 인한 재수술의 회피율(freedom from Reoperation for, SVD)은 $98.1{\pm}1.2%$$, $92.3{\pm}4.1%$이었다. 수술 전 위험인자의 다변량 분석에서 작은 판막(Valve size 25 and 27 mm)을 사용한 경우가 재수술의 유의한 위험 인자였으며, 중등도 이상의 좌심실 기능부전(Left ventricle ejection fraction, LVEF < 40%)은 구조적 판막 손상과 사망률의 유의한 위험인자였다. 결론: 승모판의 조직판막 치환술에서 생존율과 재수술의 회피율은 만족할 만한 중기 성적을 보여주나, 구조적 판막 손상의 회피율은 비교적 낮은 성적을 보였다. 수술 후 8년을 전후해서 급격한 손상의 진행을 보이므로, 8년을 기준으로 해서 잦은 경과 관찰과 심초음파 검사는 판막 손상의 조기 발견에 도움이 될 것이며, 더 많은 환자 수에서 보다 장기적인 연구가 필요할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Edmunds Jr LH, Clark RE, Cohn LH, Grunkemeier GL, Miller DC, Weisel RD. Guidelines for reporting morbidity and mortality after cardiac valvular operations. Ad hoc liaison committee for standardizing definitions of prosthetic heart valve morbidity of the american association for thoracic surgery and the society of thoracic surgeons. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;112:708-11 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(96)70055-7
  2. Myken PS. Seventeen-year experience with the St. Jude medical biocor porcine bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 2005;14:486-92
  3. Borger MA, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, Christie-Hrybinsky D, Feindel CM, David TE. Twenty-year results of the Hancock II bioprosthesis. J Heart Valve Dis 2006;15:49-56
  4. Marchand MA, Aupart MR, Norton R, et al. Fifteen-year experience with the mitral Carpentier-Edwards Perimount pericardial bioprosthesis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:S236-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02550-4
  5. Edwards MB, Taylor KM. A profile of valve replacement surgery in the UK (1986-1997): a study from the UK heart valve registry. J Heart Valve Dis 1999;8:697-701
  6. Akins CW, Buckley MJ, Daggett WM, et al. Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;65:1545-51 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00301-4
  7. Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Miyagishima RT, et al. Reoperation for bioprosthetic mitral stuructural failure: risk assessment. Circulation 2003;108(10 Suppl):II98-102 https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000092034.82750.D3
  8. Perchinsky M, Henderson C, Jamieson WR, et al. Quality of life in patients with bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses. Evaluation of cohorts of patients aged 51 to 65 years at implantation. Circulation 1998;98(19 Suppl):II81-6
  9. Potter DD, Sundt TM, Zehr KJ, et al. Operative risk of reoperative aortics valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005;129:94-103 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2004.08.023
  10. Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valve for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41:893-904 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0735-1097(02)02965-0
  11. 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
  12. Aupart M, Babuty D, Neville P, Fauchier L, Sirinelli A, Marchand M. Influence of age on valve related events with Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1997;11:929-34 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1010-7940(97)01200-1
  13. Doenst T, Borger MA, David TE. Long-term results of bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement: the pericardial perspective. J Cardiovasc Surg 2004;45:449-54
  14. Moffatt-Bruce SD, Jamieson WR. Long-term performance of prostheses in mitral valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Surg 2004;45:427-47
  15. David TE, Armstrong S, Sun Z. The Hancock II bioprosthesis at 12 years. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:S95-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(98)00318-X
  16. Jamieson WR, Marchand MA, Pelletier CL, et al. Structural valve deterioration in mitral replacement surgery: comparison of Carpentier-Edwards supra-annular porcine and PERIMOUNT pericardial bioprostheses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1999;118:297-305 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5223(99)70220-5
  17. Santini F, Luciani GB, Restivo S, et al. Over twenty-year follow up of the standard Hancock porcine bioprosthesis implanted in the mitral position. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71: S232-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-4975(01)02524-3