Browse > Article

Clinical Analysis of Repeated Heart Valve Replacement  

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)
Publication Information
Journal of Chest Surgery / v.40, no.12, 2007 , pp. 817-824 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Heart valve disease; Heart valve replacement; Reoperation;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Edmunds LH. Thrombotic and bleeding complications of prosthetic heart valves. Ann Thorac Surg 1987;44:430-45   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
2 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
3 Syracuse DC, Bowman FO, Malm JR. Prosthetic valve reoperations factor influencing early and late survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1979;77:346-54   PUBMED
4 Magilligan DJ, Lam CR, Lewis CR, et al. Mitral valve - the third time around. Circulation 1978;58(suppl 1):36-8
5 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   DOI   ScienceOn
6 Akins CW, Buckley MJ, Daggett WM, et al. Risk of reoperative valve replacement for failed mitral and aortic bioprostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;65:1545-52   DOI   ScienceOn
7 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
8 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
9 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   DOI   ScienceOn
10 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   DOI   ScienceOn
11 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   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Jamieson WR, Burr LH, Munro AI, Miyagishima RT. Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine bioprosthesis: a 21- year experience. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66:S40-3   DOI   ScienceOn
13 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   PUBMED
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 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   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
16 Bosch X, Pomar JL, Pelletier LC. Early and late prognosis after repoeration for prosthetic valve replacement. J Thorac Cardiocasc Surg 1987;8:567-72
17 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   DOI   ScienceOn
18 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   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
19 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   DOI   PUBMED
20 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   PUBMED
21 Rahimtoola SH. Choice of prosthetic heart valves for adult patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;19:893-904
22 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   PUBMED
23 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   PUBMED
24 David TE, Armstrong S, Sun Z. The Hancock II bioprosthesis at 12 years. Ann Thorac Surg 1998;66 Suppl 6: 95-8   DOI   ScienceOn
25 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   PUBMED
26 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   PUBMED
27 Akins CW. Results with mechanical cardiac valvular prostheses. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60:1836-44   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
28 Jamieson WR, Allen P, Miyagishima RT, et al. The Carpentier-Edwards standard porcine ioprosthesis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990;99:543-61   PUBMED
29 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   DOI   ScienceOn
30 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   DOI   PUBMED   ScienceOn
31 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   DOI   ScienceOn